ASA Question #39

[greymule]

I knew the answer to Question #39, but I don't like it. The offense can actually benefit by deliberately committing interference to prevent a double play:

No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

a. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1, R2 and R3 must return to the base they had at the time of the pitch.
b. Dead ball, B4 is out, R2 is out, R3 is returned to 1B, R1 scores.
c. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 is out, R2 is returned to 2B and R3 is returned to 1B.
d. Dead ball, B4 is out, R1 scores; R2 and R3 advance at their own risk.

The answer is "b." Because R1 scored before the interference, the runner closest to home becomes R2. So the inning is over but the run scores, and apparently the defense has no recourse to appeal R1 leaving before the "catch," since there was no catch.

I have been considering variations of this play:

A. If the play had started with 1 out, would R1's run still count? The BR would be out #2 on the collision, all force plays would be off, and out #3 (R2) would therefore be a time play.

B. What if F3, knocked to the ground, caught the ball anyway and quickly threw to F5 on the appeal of R1 leaving too soon?

C. What if the pop had been halfway between the 1B line and the mound and B4 ran 10 feet out of the baseline to crash F3? Imagine the scored tied in the bottom of the 7th.

D. What if B4 brushed F3 on the way by, enough for you to call interference but not enough to prevent the catch and subsequent appeal at 3B?

Or am I missing some avenue the defense has to have the run nullified?

Also:

E. Would anything change if the play had unfolded in exactly the same way, but after IFR had been called?

F. What if R1, after touching home plate, had begun to retreat to 3B at the time of the interference?

Remember that in all these plays the runner from 3B has crossed the plate before the interference.

I went back to my OBR references to reassure myself that the run cannot score in baseball. If the BR has not reached 1B at the time of the interference, runners return TOP. For willful and deliberate interference, they would also call somebody else out, I guess the runner on 3B TOP, where the logical play would have been.

[debeau]

c) Dead ball B4 is out R1 is out and R2 and R3 are returned to base 2 and 1 .
On interference by a BR the runner closest to home, at the time of the pitch is put out .
When is a batter runner out on an IFF.Not when it is called ( if so then B would be correct) but when the ball is fair ie when it touches a player in fair territory.
This happened when the collision occured so in fact we have interference by a BR not a player who was already out (and therefore ceased to be a BR .)
(NOTE : This is ISF but I would expect ASA would have much the same rulings

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by debeau
c) Dead ball B4 is out R1 is out and R2 and R3 are returned to base 2 and 1 .
On interference by a BR the runner closest to home, at the time of the pitch is put out .
When is a batter runner out on an IFF.Not when it is called ( if so then B would be correct) but when the ball is fair ie when it touches a player in fair territory.
This happened when the collision occured so in fact we have interference by a BR not a player who was already out (and therefore ceased to be a BR .)
(NOTE : This is ISF but I would expect ASA would have much the same rulings

The batter-runner is out when the IF is declared. (ASA 8.2.I) It is negated if the ball becomes foul.

[greymule]

c) Dead ball B4 is out R1 is out and R2 and R3 are returned to base 2 and 1 .
On interference by a BR the runner closest to home, at the time of the pitch is put out .

ISF has a sensible rule, but for ASA, the answer (b).

[debeau]

So there is a difference ASA and ISF .
However now the debate on when is a batter out when IFF .
I am interested in that and I dont have an ASA rule book .
ASA 8.2.1.
Does it actually say BR is out when IFF declared .
I will troll through ISF rule book because it is important to a decision on the effect of the rule as noted in an answer b or c .

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
...No outs, ...b. Dead ball, B4 is out, R2 is out, R3 is returned to 1B, R1 scores.... So the inning is over...

Why is the inning over?

[greymule]

Why is the inning over?

My mistake. Two outs. I was anticipating my contention that even if the play started with one out, the run would count though the inning would be over.

[SRW]

ASA 8-7-P

BR is out for the IFF. BR intentionally interfered with F3's ability to make a play on another runner. Dead ball. Runners returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Runner closest to home at the time of interference (now R2) is out. R1 scores.

So my answer would be B.

[mcrowder]

SRW - your ruling is right, by the book (and by the test).

However, I believe that if the umpire felt that the interference was intentional for the express purpose of scoring that run (and the umpire was SURE of it, and had great big cohones), he could rule R1 out and place R2 at 2nd, under the umbrella of not allowing the offending team from benefitting from a transgression (rule 10 dot something if memory serves).

But if you were making such a ruling, you'd better be very clear which rule you were using, because if this went to protest, and your ruling was the "normal" interference rule, you would be overturned.

[greymule]

I would think you could apply 10-1-L (or 11-1-L or whatever it is) even if the interference is not intentional. It's still benefiting from violating the rules. If you can't apply the rule here, where can you apply it?

On the other hand, the test answer does say to score the run. And it also says, "to prevent a double play," which appears to indicate intent on the part of the runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

All the NFHS guys should be use to this type of question. Read it again. Does it not say "knocking the ball loose"?

Loose from where? Do you think F3 may have already caught the ball? If not, there would be no need to mention it. Therefore, it is a dead ball, R2 is declared out, R3 returns to 1B. That's a double play. Even better, a possible appeal may still exist for R1 leaving 3B early.

Don't care about baseball. You want to reference any set of their rules, fine. However, it would be nice if you kept it to yourself. Interjecting them into a softball discussion adds nothing, but consternation to the less-than-seasoned softball umpires.

[mcrowder]

Uh, Mike... who even said a single word about baseball?

The question is not whether the test is right - it's about whether this is fair and what an umpire could/should do to rectify the fairness, if anything.

Surely you can come up with an instance where the ASA correct ruling (BR out, R2 out, R1 scores) benefits the offense.

My biggest problem with this question is that there is way way too much left open to assume. You must assume the ball was caught, even though all pops aren't caught (just because you can probably infer that F3 has possession when contact occurs due to the words "Knocks loose", you can't necessarily infer that the ball didn't bounce first.) There's no mention about whether umpire called/ruled IFF, which is important to the question. Heck, it doesn't even say whether the ball was fair or foul, which COULD matter.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Uh, Mike... who even said a single word about baseball?

The OP.

Originally posted by mcrowder
My biggest problem with this question is that there is way way too much left open to assume.

Actually, it is a pretty straight-forward rules question, in my view.

Originally posted by mcrowder
You must assume the ball was caught,

Why?

Originally posted by mcrowder
There's no mention about whether umpire called/ruled IFF, which is important to the question.

Why?

Originally posted by mcrowder
Heck, it doesn't even say whether the ball was fair or foul, which COULD matter.

How?

If we set aside the presumption that the correct call by rule is unfair, the question itself is, as I said above, pretty straightforward.

The BR collides with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted fly ball that has double play written all over it. Was it double play because it was an IF and runners had left their bases? Probably, but does it matter to the call? The rule is 8-2-F. 8-7-J or -P might also be applied.

As to the concern about unfair, IF the ball was caught and then knocked loose, then R1 does not score on proper appeal, but the umpire should be clear that he is ruling a catch, so the defense knows what the call is.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Uh, Mike... who even said a single word about baseball?

The question is not whether the test is right - it's about whether this is fair and what an umpire could/should do to rectify the fairness, if anything.

Fairness, while preferred, is not necessarily applicable to all situations. Don't believe me, ask some coaches.

Surely you can come up with an instance where the ASA correct ruling (BR out, R2 out, R1 scores) benefits the offense

My biggest problem with this question is that there is way way too much left open to assume. You must assume the ball was caught, even though all pops aren't caught (just because you can probably infer that F3 has possession when contact occurs due to the words "Knocks loose", you can't necessarily infer that the ball didn't bounce first.) There's no mention about whether umpire called/ruled IFF, which is important to the question. Heck, it doesn't even say whether the ball was fair or foul, which COULD matter.

I warned everyone that this test, while shorter, some of the questions were vague.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 24th, 2006 at 11:21 AM]

[greymule]

I think we assume the ball was caught because we're told it was knocked loose. I also assume that "to prevent a double play" means "in a deliberate attempt to prevent a double play." I think the lack of mention of IFR in the test question was an oversight on the part of ASA. And apparently it might make a difference, since the BR would then have interfered after being called out.

I mentioned OBR to show how its rule prevents the unfairness. Personally, I find it instructive to study rules differences, and I read the BRD all the time. Baseball and softball are different games, but knowing how each sport handles a certain situation can solidify each rule in my mind. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now we're distinguishing between a play in which the collision occurs before the catch and one in which the collision occurs after the catch? Is an appeal at 3B permitted in the latter but not the former?

Tie score, bottom of 7th, one out, Abel on 3B thinks the squeeze is on and takes off with the pitch. BR swings and pops to F3 fair. Abel crosses the plate. As F3 is waiting for the ball to come down, BR collides with F3 and prevents the catch.

OK. BR is out on the interference, but Abel scores and the game is over. I contend that this should not be possible. You better call 911 before making that call.

And if we're making distinctions between a collision that comes after the catch and a collision that prevents the catch, what if BR knocks F3 down--immediate interference--but F3 catches the ball anyway and immediately throws to 3B to appeal the runner leaving too soon? Nullify the catch, disallow the appeal, and score the run? I want to see somebody make that call.

Now if, regardless of the timing of the collision, the runner from 3B still is liable to be called out on appeal, then I don't have a problem with the ruling. That would still leave open the question of whether or not she could return to 3B, but at least the offense could not benefit from violating a rule.