10U ASA Question

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is only out on appeal. In my scenario, an appeal is not available.

I said "on appeal" before. Why is an appeal not available in your scenario? I must be missing something.

[mcrowder]

Irish is being intentionally cryptic, and we are obviously not following. What are you really trying to say, Mike, and how does apply to this situation? At this moment, it seems like a) a non-sequitur, and b) an incorrect assessment in and of itself. I'm sure I'm missing something.

[IRISHMAFIA]

My point is that there is nothing in ASA's rule book that states the runner must touch first, second third and home base IN THAT ORDER.

5.5.A only says a run will be scored each time a player touches all of those bases.

However, we all KNOW the right order and rule on appeals when a runner fails to touch the bases in that order.

So, if a batter puts the ball into play and circles the bases in what we know as the reverse order, are we going to automatically rule the player out?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My point is that there is nothing in ASA's rule book that states the runner must touch first, second third and home base IN THAT ORDER.

5.5.A only says a run will be scored each time a player touches all of those bases.

However, we all KNOW the right order and rule on appeals when a runner fails to touch the bases in that order.

So, if a batter puts the ball into play and circles the bases in what we know as the reverse order, are we going to automatically rule the player out?

I always thought they were called 1st, 2nd, 3rd for a reason; but thanks for pointing out an NFHS rules superiority.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My point is that there is nothing in ASA's rule book that states the runner must touch first, second third and home base IN THAT ORDER.

True, technically and literally. But the rule I referenced does say the runner is in jeopardy of being ruled on on proper appeal if the runner "fails to touch the intervening base or bases in regular or reverse order". You are correct that it does not define "intervening", "regular order" or "reverse order", but, as you say, we all know what that means.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My point is that there is nothing in ASA's rule book that states the runner must touch first, second third and home base IN THAT ORDER.

5.5.A only says a run will be scored each time a player touches all of those bases.

However, we all KNOW the right order and rule on appeals when a runner fails to touch the bases in that order.

So, if a batter puts the ball into play and circles the bases in what we know as the reverse order, are we going to automatically rule the player out?

Actually there is a rule that says a runner is out if they run the bases in reverse order. Its rule 8.3.D and it says....

A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

Effect: The ball is dead and the runner is out.

No appeal required. Of course this does not apply to the OP, since the rule clearly states that the purpose behind the running the bases in reverse order must be to confuse or to make a travesty of the game. The runner in this case was doing neither.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Actually there is a rule that says a runner is out if they run the bases in reverse order. Its rule 8.3.D and it says....

A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

Effect: The ball is dead and the runner is out.

No appeal required. Of course this does not apply to the OP, since the rule clearly states that the purpose behind the running the bases in reverse order must be to confuse or to make a travesty of the game. The runner in this case was doing neither.

You are obviously missing or not reading the posts. NO WHERE in the ASA book specify the order in which a runner must touch the bases. Therefore, how can you state that a runner is running the bases in reverse order if there is no defined order to begin?

[mcrowder]

With all due respect, Mike, none of this even remotely deals with the status of a 10U runner who has crossed the plate, and then is asked to return to 3rd by her coach instead of the umpire. Not sure why this tangent was even followed at all, and I assumed you were going somewhere with it, since you're not traditionally a thread hijacker.

So...

Why do you feel a runner can "unscore" once they've crossed the plate (assuming they have no further true need to be back on the basepaths, such as a missed base or one left too early), and also - why do you feel a 10U runner who was told by her coach to return to third after crossing the plate would be in jeopardy of being tagged, when the same runner when told by an umpire to return would not be? Seems that the person (coach vs umpir) directing her to properly return (as she must) is a rather flimsy reason to differentiate her liability status by.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Why do you feel a runner can "unscore" once they've crossed the plate (assuming they have no further true need to be back on the basepaths, such as a missed base or one left too early), and also - why do you feel a 10U runner who was told by her coach to return to third after crossing the plate would be in jeopardy of being tagged, when the same runner when told by an umpire to return would not be? Seems that the person (coach vs umpir) directing her to properly return (as she must) is a rather flimsy reason to differentiate her liability status by.

I'm sorry you cannot see the relation between the interp on a runner placing themself in jeopardy by returning past first and a runner returning to 3B. I see it as quite clear.

As I said, I do not agree with it, but it's not up to me to accept or ignore rulings.

Let me ask you this. If the runner did turn and head back to 3B after scoring during a live ball and drew a throw while there are other active runners, would you rule interference in accordance with 8.7.P and call the runner closest to home, out?