ASA Rules - No slide at the plate.. is ball dead ?
 

Last night while playing in a rec softball game there was a situation that arose that I was hoping somebody may give me some clarity to . I will let you know up front that the call went against us but I was not upset because a) it is rec softball and b) we were losing by quite a bit anyway and this had no bearing on the outcome .
Situation :
Runner on second and first and there is a base hit to right field and there is a play at the plate . The ball and the runner get to home plate at the same time . The runner does not slide and knocks the catcher over . The ball then gets away from the catcher allowing the runner who was on first as well as the batter to score . The runner who was involved in the play at the plate is declared out because he did not slide (It was not malicious...he just ran him over) .
Question :
My question is should the ball be dead at this point because the runner did not slide ?
My opinion :
From my perspective if the catcher was not knocked over the the ball would not have gotten past him allowing the other two runners to score .(Actually the ball probably would have gotten by our catcher anyway because he really does not live up to his position title but lets assume he can catch a little bit :).
HELP :
Trust me I have no problems if I am wrong I just want to understand this a little better . If somebody can provide the rule that covers this (If there is one) that would be great .

Do you have a local "must slide" rule?

In standard ASA, the runner might have been declared out for crash interference (dead ball, runner out, other runners return to their bases as the time of the interference). He might also have been declared out for flagrant misconduct due to taking out the catcher (also dead ball, runners return, etc.).

He would not have been declared out merely for not sliding, however.

If you have a local rule, does it state whether the ball is live or dead?

Ok my bad . I thought it was a uniform rule that you can't run over the catcher (Again, it was not malicious the guy just evidently did not want to slide) . I guess that was my first error...
The umpire was a certified ASA guy and I thought he was handling the game using ASA rules but we do have a no contact rule which I am copying below....as I thought it makes no mention of dead ball or not (written by Parks and Rec dept not softball guys)
"Player must slide or submit to a tag if a play is being made on them . They must make every effort to avoid contact "
It also states that "Barrelling into a fielder can be considered interference or dangerous play which can result in being called out".
To me it is still somewhat nebulous...as what is "a dangerous play" ? Not sure if the runner was called out for interferece or the "dangerous play"

You make a point to tell us this is rec ball, but you don't consider running over someone malicious? :)

From the local rule you cited, it seems the umpire was correct. HTBT, but he was probably right as far as ASA is concerned, also.

Because your local rule reads similar to the existing ASA rule on interference, my inference would be that the ball would be dead if the out was called based on this local rule. Runners would be sent to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

As for what is a "dangerous play", that would be left to the judgement of the individual umpire.

a little confused
 

IRISH MAFIA,
As it is Rec Ball there are some guys who if they slid would not be able to get back up :) He was not a svelte fella and I don't think getting down was an option for him...he ran the catcher over but also tried to keep him from falling at the same time . "Ran into" not ran over may have been the better phrase .

I am confused on your point about the Umpire being right....are you saying that is should have been a live ball after the contact and the resulting runs should have scored or are you saying he should have been called out because of the contact and the ball should have been declared dead at the point of contact ?
Sorry if I didn't understand you...

Sounds like interference. If the catcher was camped in front of the plate, that's obstruction. When the runner comes barreling in, that's interference which overrules obstruction. Runner out, all others return. (I've called this before). If runner would have pulled up to avoid hitting the catcher, then you have catcher obstruction and runner is awarded home. Rules reference is Point of Emphasis #14 and #36. So if the runner is a nice guy and pulls up so as not to hit the catcher, he scores on an awarded home plate and all his teammates get to stay at their bases.

So in essence what you are saying that nice guys do get rewarded....I like the sound of that !

Would you contrast this to an NFHS situation that occured in the County Playoff championship game in April:

Top Second Inning (I think): Runner from third crashes into pitcher (with ball) covering the plate on a passed ball. Pitcher is injured, offensive team (A) receives a must-slide-or-be-out warning from PU, but runner scores since ball was dropped.

Bottom Third Inning (again, I think): Team B runner from third dances around catcher standing over plate waiting for ball to be relayed from outfield and touches plate before ball arrives. PU now warns team B of must-slide-rule. I'm scratching my head here because there was no play, the ball MAY have been as close as over the pitchers circle when the runner touched home.

Bottom Sixth Inning: Team B runner from third (actually same runner from bottom 3rd, who doesn't apparently doesn't know how to slide effectively [coaching error for sure]) again steps on plate behind catcher, who is actually recieving the ball (but not blocking plate) as runner reaches home. No collision. Umpire rules runner out for not sliding.

What's your opinion?

The PU needs to learn the rules.

My opinion is that PU didn't get any of these plays right. First play should have been an out on the collision (8-6-13); the second two instances were clear "no-call" plays.

By what the Rec League rules state that are listed - I believe an out declared in either situation would result in a dead ball, with all runners returned to the last base touched at the time of the INT.

Rant on.

From my experience, City/Community/Rec Leagues would be better served simply adhering to, universally deferring to, and re-printing in their league rules the ASA rules regarding crashing into fielders, INT, OBR, etc., rather than confounding things by inventing or continuing to grandfather in old league rules/statements to try to make the environment seem more "rec-friendly." The ASA rule set works very well on its own, IMHO.

Rant off.

*Thread Hijack*
The first one for me is a HTBT - but sounds at least close to malicious contact. If the player has the ball in their possession - that's good enough for me. The other two? Are you kidding me? Umpires that even think there's a "must slide" rule need to have an examination - sheeeeesh. It's bad enough that parents think that's a rule.

*Hijack off*

As far as the initial thread goes - depending on the severity of the contact, someone's night may have just been shortened. According to the local rule, the "Player must slide or submit to a tag if a play is being made on them . They must make every effort to avoid contact." I assume then that they are taking the obstruction rule out of play. If a play is being made on them, they must "submit" to a tag? What the hell is that? Maybe my "special filter" got switched on again, but that just seems strange to me.

Agreed. If properly enforced, the ASA rules are very "rec friendly" ... meaning they have a sound emphasis on player safety.

The "must slide" rules, in fact, tend to compromise safety.

WHY THE .... CAN'T WE PUT THE MUST SLIDE NONSENSE TO DEATH???:mad: :mad:


It might be the most asked and over-discussed non-rule on earth. :eek: :eek:


Yes, I know it exists in LL, but that's a very rare book here.

I thought the most discussed non-rule was the "hands are part of the bat" nonsense?!?!:confused:

Hey, can we talk about the black being part of the plate next?:rolleyes:

I'm still stuck on "ties go to the runner":confused:

A Tie DOES go to the runner......If the ball doesnt beat him/her to the bag...what do you have?

Actually, the LL rule is basically the same as in NF - the runner must slide OR avoid contact.

How is the runner beating the ball to the bag a tie?:confused:

To put out a runner, the ball must beat the runner to the bag. If the runner and ball both get there at the same time, the ball did not BEAT the runner, hence the runner is safe, by rule.

So, we're back to the general list of myths, including that "tie goes to the runner" is not a myth.

Any ideas on how to kill them off?

How about that memory eraser in "Men In Black"? Maybe we could find one for "Men In Blue".

In ASA, Rule 8-7-C

When, On a force play, a fielder contacts the base while holding the ball, touches the ball to the base or tags the runner [B]before[B] the runner reaches base.

Mike, is of course, right.

Fozzie

Just a posting tip. Bracketing the word(s) with just [b] does not work unless the end code is [/b] Easier yet to select the word(s) and click the "B" or "U" or whatever at the top ofthe text window.

Getting back to the original post
1)How do you enforce the "Crash Rule" if the defensive player doesn't have possesion of the ball.:( The defense is guilty of Obstruction . Point 2 the league rule regarding sliding should also state that the play should end after the umpire calls the out otherwise you are penalizing the defense if the ball should get away from the fielder.

"Barrelling into a fielder can be considered interference or dangerous play which can result in being called out".

Since the League Rule doesn't include any statement regarding said fielder having possession of the ball, by what is listed alone, I still have a "crash" out, which takes precedence over OBR (ASA POE 14-D, minus the fielder having possession of the ball). This would, of course, be nice to have cleared up by the person that originally wrote and/or implemented said League Rules prior to this happening - and maybe, just to be crazy, actually include this in the printed League Rules.

Agreed, hence the dead ball out I was asserting in both cases in Post #12 - and again, possibly include this minor detail into the printed League Rules.

Cecil, because local leagues insist on mangling the current, perfectly working, interference and obstruction rules, adding something like the one above.

Man, what would we do if ASA or FED rules had rules that said certain events "can result in an out". Talk about vague!

I think the answer to the main question presented in the OP is that on a play like this, IF you have interference (whether by ASA rule or local rule), play should cease and runners should be placed. So if the umpire is ruling an out on this play (whether by ASA rule, which should have covered this sitch, or by the vaguely reworded local rule), then the umpire should be ceasing play.

Illegal baserunning like interference takes precedence over obstruction and negates it. An out on interference by a runner causes a dead ball.

I don't believe you can have interference and obstuction on the same collision. It is one or the other. You can have obstruction with USC on the runner, but in that case you would have the runner safe and then ejected.

For discussion's sake:

If you have obstruction, with USC on the runner immediately following (and the runner has still not touched home plate), penalized by ejection, wouldn't it go something like this?:

1. OBR (delayed dead ball)
2. USC (dead ball) - (and runner is out?)
3. Runner is ejected
4. No run scored

I'm not going to let an ejected (and/or out) player perform any baserunning, so how would the run score, if they committed USC prior to touching home plate?

If a fielder is obstructing and then the runner illegally interferes without UC (malicious or flagrant or ...), what would you call?

btw, 8-7-Q

In Fed or NCAA, I do not see how it could be anything other than obstruction. In HS it's not obstruction until the runner changes their direction, or speed (can't quote it and don't have my trusty book handy). Maybe I'm not visualizing what you are saying - but unless there's malicious contact I don't see how an offensive player can interfere with an obstructing fielder. :confused:

I'll bite a little on the tie base goes to the runner stuff...

1) I think in reality there are few instances where its exactly a tie.. but because we are humans, not slow mo replay.. depending on what side you are on.. offense, defense, or an umpire.. it will be seen differently. So if you um.. "see" the out and sell it its more acceptable than if you sit and call safe all day for "tie base" because you cant tell it was an out.

In some situations I would put "tie base goes to the runner" in the same category at an acceptable strike zone vs legal strike zone.

At higher levels (not nose to toes 10U).. legally you can call a pitch where half the ball runs acrossed the arm pits .. but your credibility will suffer, both sides will know you are screwing them, and you will really take a deserved beating from the fans players and coaches.. and you could walk around wearing the strike zone rule pinned to your shirt and it wouldnt mean anything.

Same thing with tie base ..

People (maybe its MLB conditioning) on a clean play expect the out. Even the team favored this time will see you "screwed" the other team and when you screw them, your credibility has suffered. Everyone saw you screw the team out of a great play and they will be waiting for you to screw their team.

Example, a clean double play where you may think its a "tie"..well IMO, its not, its a sell out.

I would call it "in the trenches survivability" .. mens FP, higher level ball .. good clean plays - the out is expected.. perhaps a benefit of doubt to defense on good plays on the bases. I would not suggest an umpire ever using the words "tie base goes to the runner" (for sure dont call it a myth either!) in their on the field vocabulary.

Thats just my .02 and I already know many disagree.

If the ball dont beat the runner, its safe.. thats known. But I think theres a little more to effectively calling the game from the field when you have quick plays and fast good players who know what they are doing.. what is acceptable and what is expected.. just like with a strike zone.

I don't disagree with you here. If I have a nice clean play I'm ringing up the out.

With that being said. I have never seen a tie. ;)
And I am sure not telling the players I saw a tie.

The phrase we use around here is 'tie goes to the umpire'

Fozzie

I think someone needs to define a "clean play".

How about: fielder has ball and touches the base before the runner arrives. :p

That would be obvious without need of description. However, a "clean play" is usually referred to when the defender's handle the ball with no bobbles, drop, slips or error (generically, not as scoring a play).

Just because the defense does their job without mistakes does not mean the defense gets the call.

Thus the reason I asked for a definition.

There is no smiley for facetious, so I used the "razz". Did you really think that was a serious answer?

No, be seeing that as the only response, I was just trying to set the tone of the cause for my previous request.

Mike, I'm confused by your clarification here. Did you mean what I've inserted?

Ooh, thanks. Yep, post edited.

I just assumed that and you should have too. :p