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

[greymule]

In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.

But the runner had already crossed the plate. In ASA, that runner is not considered the runner nearest the plate. Whatever kind of interference you want to use to call the BR out, that run still counts.

But suppose the popup was a bunt (and IFR could not be called)? How would you nullify the run in that case?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Stop avoiding the point of the issue. Drop IFR from your answer, as GM says, it's a red herring and distracting you from the real issue. Make whatever change you feel necessary to remove IFR from the equation and then answer it (call it a bunt, call it not catchable under ordinary effort ... but conceivably catchable enough that the obvious intentional interference comes into play, remove either R3 or R2 from the equation... whatever you need).

The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook, and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.

The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook.....


That was the point of the Test question which I never denied and agreed with GREYMULE's suggested changes.

.. and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.


No, under those cirumstances I would call it the way I have been explaining.

And I would be correct by ASA rules.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

..........
No, under those cirumstances I would call it the way I have been explaining.

And I would be correct by ASA rules.

maybe, maybe not. If it wasnt a scenario when IFR would apply, then you would not be correct.

In practice, I probably call IFR myself, that doesnt mean I dont recognize rules as they are written. So when I see a scenario written for training purposes where IFR doesnt apply, I wouldnt steadfastly maintain IFR DOES apply.. when it obviously doesnt.

You have invented for yourself an entire method of umpiring, and where the rules/scenario conflict with your method, you choose your method over the rules and declare a "none of the above, I'm right" answer.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

No, under those cirumstances I would call it the way I have been explaining.

And I would be correct by ASA rules.

Maybe I missed one of your posts - but all I see you relying on is BR being out due to IFR. If it's not IFR, then do you rule by the book, or by what you think is fair. If you dodge the question yet again, I believe you have relegated yourself back to trolldom.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Maybe I missed one of your posts - but all I see you relying on is BR being out due to IFR. If it's not IFR, then do you rule by the book, or by what you think is fair. If you dodge the question yet again, I believe you have relegated yourself back to trolldom.

I have never dodged the question.

That scenario is a clear infield fly rule situation.

The test question ignored that leaving only one correct answer.

I said that given that same scenario in an actual game the infield fly rule would be invoked. My answer to both is to rule by the book.

In the test question the umpire is correct in allowing the run to score because it came before the interfernce. Maybe the question was used to get us to think about the rule and suggest changes....Greymule thinks so, and I agree.

But in real life the situation, as described , is not that simple.
And the rule book has other citations that would allow an umpire to reach a different conclusion.

But the original point of GREYMULE is valid. Discussing the play has, also, led to a deeper reading of other rules and interpretations.

That is always good.

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

pfff... 90% of this forum is making much ado about nothing. Thats what makes it fun.

Dont you worry though, its basically a fairly slow board, so even with all the ado flowing around, you will still have enough time to invent your own flourishes and hand slaps for use as signals in games.

Ok Wade,
Now that the King and his court are gone, are you applying to be the new jester?

I liked this one, a lot.
Needed it on a very bad day.
Thanks

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I have never dodged the question.

That scenario is a clear infield fly rule situation.

The test question ignored that leaving only one correct answer.

I said that given that same scenario in an actual game the infield fly rule would be invoked. My answer to both is to rule by the book.

In the test question the umpire is correct in allowing the run to score because it came before the interfernce. Maybe the question was used to get us to think about the rule and suggest changes....Greymule thinks so, and I agree.

But in real life the situation, as described , is not that simple.
And the rule book has other citations that would allow an umpire to reach a different conclusion.

But the original point of GREYMULE is valid. Discussing the play has, also, led to a deeper reading of other rules and interpretations.

That is always good.

I have a feeling this will be like yelling into a hurricane, but here goes...

For you to say you haven't dodged the question is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you don't consider makig up your own question as dodging someone else's.

The situation description did not give you enough information to hold your breath and say "infield fly ... infield fly ... infield fly ..." over and over. Unless, of course, you just blindly call any pop up with less than 2 outs and a force play at 3rd to be an infield fly. I guess that would make the judgment, well, cookbook. But it would no longer actually be judgment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Not what the rule says.

And remember this was predicated on the rule book, not common sense.


Rule 8-2 Batter-Runner is out:

F. When the batter-runnner interferes with:....a fielder attempting to field a batter ball.

Okay, this one comes under N.S.S. The rule you cite allows the umpire who believes (uh-oh, here comes that intent thing again) call the runner closest to home out if s/he believed it prevented a double play. R1 is NOT the runner closest to home. R1 has scored and is no longer a participant in the play.

I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

Another N.S.S.

In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.

The rule you are citing (retired running) refers to drawing a throw.

Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

And you get the 2nd out, it just isn't R1.

If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out

Again, the "continuing to run" is not applicable as it isn't drawing a throw

...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.

Again, we are back to N.S.S. That is exactly the answer given by ASA on the test. At the time of the INT the runner closest to home is R2.

I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

Sorry, but it's only a good example of running a thread in circles with extraneous and irrelevant information while demonstrating a lack in rules applications.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I have a feeling this will be like yelling into a hurricane, but here goes...

For you to say you haven't dodged the question is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you don't consider makig up your own question as dodging someone else's.

The situation description did not give you enough information to hold your breath and say "infield fly ... infield fly ... infield fly ..." over and over. Unless, of course, you just blindly call any pop up with less than 2 outs and a force play at 3rd to be an infield fly. I guess that would make the judgment, well, cookbook. But it would no longer actually be judgment.

No, you just didnt like my response.

But, frankly, I dont care.

Everything I have put forth can be backed by the ASA Rule Book.

If nothing else this discussion group will lead me to constant re-reading of the rule book and the case books...and that is what I am here for.

The last clinic I attended for ASA(March 20,2007).we were split into groups of 8 and given specific plays to rule on. The arguments over rules was lively and disparate. And that kind of give and take is good, because it fosters growth and learning. And that is all I care about.

If my responses bother you, then ignore me. Wont stop me from reading and responding with my input. I am the one who works my schedule, no one else.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

No, you just didnt like my response.

Everything I have put forth can be backed by the ASA Rule Book.

Thats a hoot! I dont know if you've had it right yet, even once.

The last clinic I attended for ASA(March 20,2007).we were split into groups of 8 and given specific plays to rule on. The arguments over rules was lively and disparate. And that kind of give and take is good, because it fosters growth and learning. And that is all I care about.

Boy those other 7 guys sure drew the short stick. I can only imagine what it was like.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Thats a hoot! I dont know if you've had it right yet, even once.



Boy those other 7 guys sure drew the short stick. I can only imagine what it was like.

Wade,

I hope you feel better.

But you have yet to find me wrong in anything.
And dont bother with the insults...I could care less what you say about me.
I suggest you find someone else to share your ad hominems with.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Wade,

I hope you feel better.

But you have yet to find me wrong in anything.
And dont bother with the insults...I could care less what you say about me.
I suggest you find someone else to share your ad hominems with.

Actually, your insistence as follows:

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

"The play in question is a clear case of invoking the infield fly rule. I already cited the rules covering the play."

"And I would be correct by ASA rules."

When even the highest levels and rule writers of ASA disagree with you (one of whom is posting on this very thread) is SO wrong as to be amusing.


You are clueless.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, this one comes under N.S.S. The rule you cite allows the umpire who believes (uh-oh, here comes that intent thing again) call the runner closest to home out if s/he believed it prevented a double play. R1 is NOT the runner closest to home. R1 has scored and is no longer a participant in the play.



Another N.S.S.



The rule you are citing (retired running) refers to drawing a throw.



And you get the 2nd out, it just isn't R1.



Again, the "continuing to run" is not applicable as it isn't drawing a throw



Again, we are back to N.S.S. That is exactly the answer given by ASA on the test. At the time of the INT the runner closest to home is R2.



Sorry, but it's only a good example of running a thread in circles with extraneous and irrelevant information while demonstrating a lack in rules applications.

Okay, this one comes under N.S.S. The rule you cite allows the umpire who believes (uh-oh, here comes that intent thing again) call the runner closest to home out if s/he believed it prevented a double play. R1 is NOT the runner closest to home. R1 has scored and is no longer a participant in the play.

R1 is the closest player to the plate since the interference(running after being declared out) happened before R1 crossed the plate.

Quote:
I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

Another N.S.S.

N.S.S. what?


Quote:
In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.


The rule you are citing (retired running) refers to drawing a throw.

Cant draw a throw when the ball is in the air...how do you explain that?

Quote:
Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

And you get the 2nd out, it just isn't R1.

R1 cannot score on a foul ball and he cannot score when the interference(runner declared out continues to run) happens before R1 scores.


Quote:
If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out

Again, the "continuing to run" is not applicable as it isn't drawing a throw.

See above.


Quote:
...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.

Again, we are back to N.S.S. That is exactly the answer given by ASA on the test. At the time of the INT the runner closest to home is R2.

The ASA test ignored an obvious infield fly rule....which means the test in it's narrowest sense is correct......but not in any real life experience under the same conditions...a distinction which contines to elude you.

Quote:
I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

Sorry, but it's only a good example of running a thread in circles with extraneous and irrelevant information while demonstrating a lack in rules applications.

If you say so.

But I disagree.
__________________

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Okay, this one comes under N.S.S. The rule you cite allows the umpire who believes (uh-oh, here comes that intent thing again) call the runner closest to home out if s/he believed it prevented a double play. R1 is NOT the runner closest to home. R1 has scored and is no longer a participant in the play.

R1 is the closest player to the plate since the interference(running after being declared out) happened before R1 crossed the plate.

Quote:
I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

Another N.S.S.

N.S.S. what?


Quote:
In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.


The rule you are citing (retired running) refers to drawing a throw.

Cant draw a throw when the ball is in the air...how do you explain that?

Quote:
Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

And you get the 2nd out, it just isn't R1.

R1 cannot score on a foul ball and he cannot score when the interference(runner declared out continues to run) happens before R1 scores.


Quote:
If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out

Again, the "continuing to run" is not applicable as it isn't drawing a throw.

See above.


Quote:
...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.

Again, we are back to N.S.S. That is exactly the answer given by ASA on the test. At the time of the INT the runner closest to home is R2.

The ASA test ignored an obvious infield fly rule....which means the test in it's narrowest sense is correct......but not in any real life experience under the same conditions...a distinction which contines to elude you.

Quote:
I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

Sorry, but it's only a good example of running a thread in circles with extraneous and irrelevant information while demonstrating a lack in rules applications.

If you say so.

But I disagree.
__________________

The answer to all of this is obvious:

All of our 2007 ASA rule books are wrong, and Jim is out there with the only correct copy. (Probably still has the batter's boxes at 3x7.)

Jim, could you scan your lone correct copy of the rulebook into some common format and post it so we will all have one? Thanks!

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

The answer to all of this is obvious:

All of our 2007 ASA rule books are wrong, and Jim is out there with the only correct copy. (Probably still has the batter's boxes at 3x7.)

Jim, could you scan your lone correct copy of the rulebook into some common format and post it so we will all have one? Thanks!

John,

I have read the 2007 Rule Book.

Everything I have posted is correct by that rule book.

If you disagree, then please speak up.

If you cannot back up what you say, then you are going to have trouble making any ruling on the field that the players will respect.