ASA Double Base - Purpose of 8.2.M.4.?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Apology accepted. Sorry to have misunderstood, but in my defense... well, nevermind.

The rule book and common sense are intertwined, but the rulings made cannot be contradictory to the rule book. Common sense should be an extension of the known, not a replacement of it.

I never suggested changing the interpretation of any rule for any reason. That is up to the rulesmakers with input from the players and umpires.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

What play are you talking about?

Wow, you're quick.

[jimpiano]

The post was grom Greymule mentioning a play that was not described.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The post was grom Greymule mentioning a play that was not described.

Wow ... still quick.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the play you describe yourself (and I quoted for you)... how do you rule on such a play - "common sense" or ASA Rulebook?

[greymule]

I have to run to a doubleheader now. I'll post the play when I get back. It was on the ASA test either last year or the year before. In fact, there are a couple of variations I'd like to investigate and discuss.

[jimpiano]

He mentioned a play where the offense benefitted on intentional interference.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

He mentioned a play where the offense benefitted on intentional interference.

So did I. So did you.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

So did I. So did you.

I never mentioned any play concerning intentional interference on a player on a pop fly. That came from Greymule I asked him to explain the play, which he is going to do later.

[IRISHMAFIA]

May not be the same, but I believe this is the type of play to which you are referring:

Runners at the corners, 1 out & BR pops up in the IF. R1 believes no one will catch the ball and takes off for home. BR is running in fair territory as F1 is attempting to catch the fly ball. R1 scores just before F1 runs into BR while the ball is over fair territory.

[greymule]

Yes, that's the play. Here's the question:

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 correct answer is "b".

If I were in charge of ASA rules, I would add to the rule book something on the order of what's in the NCAA and OBR books:

1) If the BR commits interference before reaching 1B, all runners return TOP, and
2) In no cases shall bases be run, etc.

And, for willful and deliberate interference with fly balls, I would also define "runner closest to home plate" to be R3 (as OBR does), so that the answer would be "c". (And for unintentional, nonwillful, nondeliberate interference, the answer would be "a".)

If this had not been a test question and someone had posed the question to me, I would have said that as the umpire I would not let the offense benefit by violating the rules.

Since "b" is the correct answer, it makes me wonder how to call this one:

Tie score, bottom 7th, 1 out. Abel on 3B. Baker hits a high pop in front of the plate. Abel runs home and scores. As F2 is about to make the catch, Baker tackles F2 to prevent the catch.

There's another play that should be prevented:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 1 out. Daniels, a heavy and slow slugger, hits a hard one-hopper to F6 near 2B and starts slogging toward 1B. Abel scoots home as F6, seeing an easy double play, steps on 2B and takes a moment to set himself for the easy out at 1B on the slow Daniels. However, though the throw from F6 is in plenty of time at 1B, Charles sticks out his arm and knocks the ball away.

By rule, Baker (as the runner closest to home) is out to end the inning, but Abel's run scores. (Remember that Baker's out is not a force out, since Charles has been put out.) Again, this play can't happen in the other codes I'm familiar with. I would rewrite the rule so that the defense gets the out where the play was (Daniels at 1B).

[jimpiano]

Greymule wrote:
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 correct answer is "b".




I think the rule book covers that situation and makes the answer "none of the above".

With the bases loaded and less than two outs a pop fly on the infield is an infield fly and the batter is out when the umpire calls infield fly: Rule 8-2, i.

Rule 7-p says that ....(if) any offensive player, after being called out, interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out and all other runners returned to bases at the time of the interference. The key part of the ruling comes next: A runner continuing to run after being declared out and drawing a throw is a form of interference. While this is not the exact circumstance in this scenario the effect is the same. The batter runner was out on the infield fly rule and committed interference by continuing to run.

At the very least you would have a ruling that the interference occured before the runner touched the plate and would justify putting the runners back.

[greymule]

I think the rule book covers that situation and makes the answer "none of the above".

It's ASA's test.

With the bases loaded and less than two outs a pop fly on the infield is an infield fly and the batter is out when the umpire calls infield fly: Rule 8-2, i.

The play stipulates that the ball was "near the line." But even if the ump did call IFR, the BR still interfered with the fielder. The ball isn't dead on IFR.

Rule 7-p says that ....(if) any offensive player, after being called out, interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out and all other runners returned to bases at the time of the interference. The key part of the ruling comes next: A runner continuing to run after being declared out and drawing a throw is a form of interference. While this is not the exact circumstance in this scenario the effect is the same. The batter runner was out on the infield fly rule and committed interference by continuing to run.

Yes indeed, the BR did commit interference, but by deliberately colliding with F3, not by continuing to run. Nothing says the BR must stop running when IFR is called.

At the very least you would have a ruling that the interference occured before the runner touched the plate and would justify putting the runners back.

The play stipulates: "R1 has touched home before the collision."

[jimpiano]

Greymule wrote:

Yes indeed, the BR did commit interference, but by deliberately colliding with F3, not by continuing to run. Nothing says the BR must stop running when IFR is called.


I misstated(or misidentified) the rule :

Rule 8-7, P which states:

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

Note: A runner continuing to run after being DECLARED out .......(m)ay be considered a form of interference.

Rule 8-2,i The batter runner is out WHEN an infield fly is DECLARED.

The umpire would be fully justifed in calling the runner from third out since the rule book definition of interference in this case happened before the runner touched home and the subsequent collision with the fielder prevented a double play. Or he could call inteference when the batter/runner continued to run after being declared out which would result in a dead ball and the runners would have to return.

[jimpiano]

Greymule wrote:

Yes indeed, the BR did commit interference, but by deliberately colliding with F3, not by continuing to run. Nothing says the BR must stop running when IFR is called.


I misstated(or misidentified) the rule :

Rule 8-7, P which states:

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

Note: A runner continuing to run after being DECLARED out .......(m)ay be considered a form of interference.

Rule 8-2,i The batter runner is out WHEN an infield fly is DECLARED.

The umpire would be fully justifed in calling the runner from third out since the rule book definition of interference in this case happened before the runner touched home and the subsequent collision with the fielder prevented a double play. Or he could call inteference when the batter/runner continued to run after being declared out which would result in a dead ball and the runners would have to return.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Greymule wrote:

Yes indeed, the BR did commit interference, but by deliberately colliding with F3, not by continuing to run. Nothing says the BR must stop running when IFR is called.


I misstated(or misidentified) the rule :

Rule 8-7, P which states:

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

Note: A runner continuing to run after being DECLARED out .......(m)ay be considered a form of interference.

Rule 8-2,i The batter runner is out WHEN an infield fly is DECLARED.

The umpire would be fully justifed in calling the runner from third out since the rule book definition of interference in this case happened before the runner touched home and the subsequent collision with the fielder prevented a double play. Or he could call inteference when the batter/runner continued to run after being declared out which would result in a dead ball and the runners would have to return.

Actually the scenario CLEARLY states R1 touched home before the collision.