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

Runner is out
- On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the D and the O may use either portion of the base.

I understood this to mean the "common/lay" use of the term "Force Out" (as ASA uses elsewhere as well) as opposed to the specific written Force out definition, which would make the above make no sense.

How I understood it from the 06 Clinic was for all intents and purposes the base becomes one base once the B/R situation was resolved and my hand out from 06 seems to indicate this as well.

ie.. from EZ Teams scenario - R1@1B - Liner caught by diving F3 who lands in foul territory. Can they use orange to make the out on R1 tagging up?

-----------------

If that is not allowed by rule, which I agree strictly written rules (and common sense) do not allow it.. but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?

How do you have a "definition force" at 1B?
You can have a "layman" force at 1B.

To avoid collision and injury when the play causes the fielder to be in foul territory

i.e ball hits the white base and bounds into foul territory,
ball is booted by first baseman into foul territory, etc

whatchu talkin bout willis?

you asked "but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?"

I said to avoid collisions and injuries when the play is in foul territory. That rule allows the fielder to touch the orange and the runner to choose.

That scenario is not a force. That scenario is a live ball appeal. Live ball appeal is not mentioned in the Double base rules.

Both scenarios I mentioned are live ball forces.

Batted ball hits white portion of base and bounds into foul territory where F3 fields it......rule 8.2.4m allows fielder to touch orange portion of first base and the runner to use the white portion. The reason is to prevent a collision and possible injury, a rule change in 2006.

Same scenario would apply if the fielder booted a fair ball into foul territory and retrieved it.

Ok thank you...

mike, mcrowder dakota steve.. anyone else..
:cool:

ok jim.. how are your two scenarios "live ball" forces and who are they forces on?

The ball is live in both cases and the batter/runner is forced to first base .


Rule 8 -7 g

While I happen to agree that B/R to first should be termed a force, and the definition fixed to make it so, it's not a force Jim. Thats another convo.

Regardless, thats not my scenario, which is a b/r retired before reaching first base which is CLEARLY not a force and the rule book is very clear on this in more than one area.

That rule was citation was not correct in the question you asked.

Rule 8 2-b covers the situation...when after hitting a fair ball the batter/runner is put out before reaching first base.

HA! Youre funny dude.

I gotta hit the sack soon, hopefully your drivel doesnt detract away from my OP as I'm curious as to what the point is of 8.2.M.4 if its not for jimpiano forces.

I already told you what the reasoning of 8.2.4m is .

To prevent collisions and injuries.

I know what you are saying.

The thing is, there are umpires on this forum who really do know what they are talking about. They are good. I'm not trying to offend you, just stating fact:

You are not one of them.

I dont care if you believe me or not.

But I am correct.

Its not the point of the my post or question. I know ASA is incorrectly using the term force in the rule, _THAT IS_ the point of my post and the point of the discussion, carried over from ezteams.. which I would rather have here as there are 57 yous on ezteams.

Youre off in never never land.

I'll type slowly.

ASA is seemingly using a laymens definition of force in this rule.

If they are using a "laymens/jimpiano/coach type force" in the rule, it would seem to me that it should, by intent and spirit of the rule, apply it to the live ball appeal.

If they ARENT using the laymens definition, then the rule makes no sense, as there is no force at 1B ever.

Let's start by realizing that any restriction on the use of a double base only applies to executing a play on the BR. There are no such restrictions when making any other play.Yes, the term as defined is specific, yet used as a matter of convenience and brevity. Speaking of common sense, just think about the differences between a runner and a BR. Are not both required to advance to the next base to avoid being retired due to the batter becoming a BR? Can both not be put out by either a tag of the player or the base to which they are required to advance?

The only real difference is that in the BR's case, the "force" can never be relieved for any reason as there is no trailing runner or base to which s/he can retreat to avoid being put out.

Maybe it is helpful to look at the double base rule.

It was adopted to prevent collisions and injuries on the play at first base. The batter-runner is the only offensive player required to use the colored portion of the double bag. The play is a force out, since the batter/runner need not be tagged; the batter/runner is out unless he/she gets to the base before the ball. If the batter/runner misses the colored portion or touches only the white portion and is tagged out before returning to the white or colored portion the batter/runner is out. This would be a live appeal. Rule 8 -2, m 3

So once the batter/runner reaches first base the requirement of using the colored portion is removed. 8-2, m6,7,8

If the batter/runner interferes with the fielder by using only the white portion the batter/runner is out 8-2,m9

In most cases the play at first base to attempt to put out the batter/runner involves the fielder in fair territory with the runner using the portion of the double bag in foul territory. But sometimes the play can cause the fielder to use foul territory so the rulesmakers allow the fielder and the batter/runner to switch use of the double base to prevent collisions.

You asked the reason for 8-2,m 4---that is the reason.

Similarly 8-2, m 5 allows the same choices on a throw that forces the fielder to the foul side of first base.

In any event the words force play describe how the out is made at first base.

and after that, it becomes one base.

So, in the OP scenario is that out our safe?

On ezteams you definitely implied by your question, it was not allowed.


:D told ya when we discussed that awhile ago, they were gonna have to fix that. You were adamant it wasnt a force. I agree, but ASA uses force (even before this rule) in the typically understood fan/coach/jimpiano manner


I'm not putting you in the spot to defend this lame rule Irish, me and you are on the same page on what we think about the double base.

But its there, so I'm just making sure I'm doing it right.

You dont understand the rules enough to even understand the discussion and as such you blah blah about nonsense.

I'm not talking about that jim.

Wade - maybe you should redefine your question then, as you actually asked more than one question in your OP. Jim answered one of them, but that seems to have made you angry. I grant you - Pianoman bugs the heck out of me too ... but not because of his response in THIS thread. He answered ONE of your questions.

Which question did you really want answered?

No he is going on and on about safety blah blah, as if I am asking about the reason for the doublebase.. which is obviously implemented for safety. I'm asking for the reasoning behind using the term "force" in 8.2.4.m inappropriately, if not to make it apply to situations like this.

The thread is a carry over from ezteams where irish stated in response to umpires who were stating that the defender could use the orange bag:

So I went to my 06 Clinic notes - and that is exactly the implication of this rule - it is one base after the b/r situation is resolved and how I was enforcing it last year. I stated in my OP that I understood that the rule means for all intents and purposes, it is one base after the b/r situation.

8.2.M.4 allows defender on forces (obviously not technical definition forces, it means "force out" plays) i.e. plays where the defender must only touch the bag to get the out to use the orange bag if they are on the foul side.

But when Mike enters a convo and asks something like that, it adds a big fat shade of gray that makes it less clear... because obviously this exact situation is not covered by the rule in exact language.

I have no idea what your are asking anymore.

A play at first base is a force.
The distinctions on the use of the double base are pretty clear.

Since this thread has become so damn convoluted, let's start anew.

To start, where does is state "Runner is out"? If you are referring to 8.2.M, it is the Batter-Runner, not the runner. Yes, in this instance the term "force out" is used in a common/lay manner for convenience and brevity. It should read "on any attempt to retire the batter-runner from the foul side of first base".The obvious answer to this question is yes.Again, you are referencing a rule which applies to a BR only to that of a live ball appeal on a runner.Covered this already.

In ASA rule book usage, putting the BR out prior to touching 1B is a force out. Even though a strict reading of the definition would leave some doubt on this, this is backed up by consistent ASA interpretations. I know the "is the BR 'forced' to 1B" is a never-ending source of amusement for the OBR debaters, but it really has little substance WRT ASA.

Damn, Tony deleted his message before I could respond.

But, no, you don't need to add "before the BR reaches 1B" as once the BR reaches 1B, they are no longer a BR

It is my understanding that it becomes one base for ANY R, including B-R becomes R as a result of having reached 1B. Ref: Rule 8.2.M.6 Rule 8.2.M.7 and Rule 8.2.M.8.

It would probably make more sense to refer to the player who was a B-R, and has passed 1B and play has not yet ended as R0 (zero).

By rule, I have an OUT here. As both defense is entitled to use the whole base while making a play on R; just as R is entitled to use the whole base in baserunning. Again, ref: Rule 8.2.M.6 Rule 8.2.M.7 and Rule 8.2.M.8.

8.2.M.3 requires that defense must use white and B-R must use colored portion.

IMHO 8.2.M.4 should have been an EXCEPTION to 8.2.M.3 rather than a separate rule.

Without the EXCEPTION (aka 8.2.M.4) we would have a rule requiring B-R to be in a postion that could potentially interfere with the opportunity to put B-R out.

I don't know if this was the reason the rule was written as I was not there, but this is what makes the most logical case to me.

"IMHO 8.2.M.4 should have been an EXCEPTION to 8.2.M.3 rather than a separate rule."-TCANNIZZO

I think the reason it is not an exeption is because there are more than one exceptions

On a play on a live batted ball that forces the defender into foul territory the rule permits the BATTER/RUNNER to use the white portion and the defender the colored which is covered by 8-2, m,4

On a play where an errant throw pulls the defender into the foul side of the bag, the same applies 8-2, m, 5

I think the rulesmakers figured it was clearer this way than trying to explain two variations in one exception.

I don't believe there is anything in the book which actually states the defense may use either portion of the double base on a play not involving the BR. I believe it is simply the proper interpretation accepted by umpires.

READY - FIRE - AIM - DELETE:D

And that says all we need to hear. Reread your definition of "Force Play" and then tell us again why you think a play at 1B (assumedly on BR) is a force. It's not. It's very similar, but it's not a force.

Here is the thread:
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ht=double+base

Please don't back me into a corner and make me defend him! :) I believe the answer to your question - "What is the purpose of rule 8.2.4.m?" IS "Safety" The purpose of the base in the first place is safety, yes... but without this rule, it is no longer safe, as BR would HAVE to cross F3 (and vice versa) to reach the bases they were required to reach. WITH this rule, they no longer have to - which is why I would say that the reason for this rule is quite simply safety.

And this is why I asked you which question you were really after. Because it was obvious from your response to Pianoboy that you really weren't asking that, even though that is what he was answering.

By clinic, by interpretation, and by usage, yes. I believe Mike was probably only pointing out that this interp was actually not rule-based. Only usage/clinic based, although I think he only muddied the issue by saying so, as 100% of the clinics I've attended that addressed this said what you said.

Yeah - I hate the inconsistency too. 8-2-M-4 doesn't apply to anyone but the BR, and BR can't be forced. You are right that the use of that word in this rule was technically a mistake.

As I stated above, I agree with you. You also muddied the conversation by bringing in the side issue dealing with R - which doesn't apply to this rule at all.

Because it is treated like a force in all circumstances by ASA. I seem to recall that it is the ASA interpretation that the BR who overruns 1B can re-instate the force by overrunning back in the other direction toward home. IOW, the defense can retire the BR in that circumstance by merely tagging the base. I don't have time now to try to look this up... does anyone else remember this? We discussed it a year or two ago on this board.

The rulesmakers chose that language. A batter/runner is put out at first base in the same manner as a baserunner who is forced to a base when the batter becomes a runner. In this case the rulesmakers saw no distinction between the definition of "force play" and a play at first base prior to the runner getting to the bag used the term to make the rule clear and understandable.

And you know this...how?

Are you making my point or yours?

Yes ... and so is an appeal for leaving early or missing a base. You calling those forces too? Hope not. The fact that it LOOKS like a force doesn't mean it IS a force.

When ASA uses the term "force out at first" they mean the BR advancing to first. Simple as that. You guys can argue angels on the head of a pin about the purist approach to the definitions, but that is the fact.

Take this argument back to OBR where it belongs. JMO.

Rule 8 2, m4

"On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base."

That is the only referenece to a force out in the rule.

An appeal for missing the double base is covered in m, 3. According to interpretations you and others have been told at clinics a return to touch after a caught fly can be successful at either part of the bag. Niether situation is called a force.

I don't know why the term "force out" in m, 4 should cause any confusion, since it is useful in describing the scenario.

The rulesmakers chose the term "force out" for a reason. To parse that language and compare it to the meaing of "force out" in other parts of the book is to miss the forest for the trees.

As Dakota correctly points out, this is really meaningless semantics, in that the way a force play and a play on BR at first base are treated the same. I agree with that, and I think we both understand the rule.

However, this particular rule is the ONLY place where such a play is refered to this way, and it is this that Wade was pointing out as an error.

If a play on BR at first was TRULY a force play, the definition of "force play" would need to be rewritten to include BR, and the 2 or 3 spots in the book that mention "On a force play or on a play on BR at first base" would simply need to change to "on a force play".

You can continue to argue that because of THIS rule referring to a play on BR at first as a force play, then a play on BR IS a force play. It's weak logic... but my logic for saying it's NOT a force play because in other places in the book ASA intentionally mentions them separately is exactly as weak, with the only real difference between my argument and yours being found in the definition of "Force Play".

Honestly, it's a silly argument. And you probably agree. So lets let it die.

I just received this email from our Regional UIC... (this should be posted on ASA's website under the Rules Clarifications later this week.) I think it helps to clarify the question, even though it relates to the fourth out appeal:

Good enough, thanks mike. You threw me when you asked the question.

If it wasnt for stuff like this, we wouldnt need new rules edition everyear, I suppose.

:D

Like I said, "proper interpretation". Not everyone gets to speak to my good buds (who usually run the other way when they see me :D ).

Hopefully, it will be added in some manner next year.

I happen to agree - someday ASA will catch up and update the force out definition to match the usage of "force" in their rules and common usage by everyone in the game.

If there was ever much ado about nothing this would be it.

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.

:D

Wade, sometimes you can be a real smartass, but that one made me laugh. :D

Slow board?

If you cant fathom a force out then I would wonder about your definition of slow.

It's the ability to keep up with what you call ado and its proper application on the field that separates great umpires from thousands of others.

If you consider it to be much ado about nothing, well, let's see for which list you qualify.

Because it is treated like a force in all circumstances by ASA. I seem to recall that it is the ASA interpretation that the BR who overruns 1B can re-instate the force by overrunning back in the other direction toward home. IOW, the defense can retire the BR in that circumstance by merely tagging the base. I don't have time now to try to look this up... does anyone else remember this? We discussed it a year or two ago on this board.

That's right. ASA, unlike other codes, considers the BR to have "occupied" a previous base—home. The BR can in fact reinstate the force by retreating (though he wouldn't have to overrun 1B; he could simply stop on the base and then retreat). Therefore, in ASA the out on the BR at 1B is indistinguishable from a force play and should rightly be termed such.

Since the rule change, I have treated the entire white/orange slab of the safety base as usable by either fielder or runner once the BR touches (or crosses 1B).

I like you because you dont let the rule book get in the way of what you consider "umpiring". In fact, so far you have stood firm on two positions since joining our little piece of the internets, neither of which is supported by the rule book. The rule book can be such a drag!!!111

Thats gutsy.

You keep up the good work.

"Therefore, in ASA the out on the BR at 1B is indistinguishable from a force play and should rightly be termed such."

Since the rule change, I have treated the entire white/orange slab of the safety base as usable by either fielder or runner once the BR touches (or crosses 1B).

Imagine that...applying the rule using common sense.
__________________

You'd be well advised to make the distinction between "common sense" meaning "what I think it should be" and "common sense" meaning "consistent with the published rule book, clinic teaching, and official interpretations."

My statements on the force play at 1B fall into the latter category, as do the treatment of the entire double base as usable by both teams.

Umpires frequently use "common sense" as the justification for making up their own rules. Not saying you are doing that, just a caution to not take what you said too far.

That is why I referenced Greymule.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on your more recent postings, that you were attempting to move away from trolldom. I don't know whether you are trying to insult me or greymule, but either way, I see I was wrong about you.

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. 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.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

If you're calling an ASA game, and the BR does this, do you follow "common sense" or the ASA book?

I quoted Greymule as a compliment to him.

I replied to your advice by referencing Greymule's post as demonstrating that the rule book and common sense are intertwined.

I don't how you could interpret the post as an insult, but since you did, I apologize.

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.

What play are you talking about?

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.

Wow, you're quick.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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.

The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.

Greymule wrote:The scenario does not SAY IFR was called nor in effect and nothing about this scenario automatically makes IFR in effect.



You can use the test question to make a point on the rule that would allow a team to benefit by interference.

However, the rule book also prevents that situation from happening under the circumstances outlined in the test question...which is important if the play actually happens.

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

The 2005-6 ASA Casebook also covers this:
Play 8.2 -36A .....(I)nterference after an out should not be called.

Failure to invoke the infield fly rule is correctable by declaring the batter out and returning all runners.

The test question was troublesome in that the scenario is pretty unlikely while ignoring other rules that cover the play and prevent a team from profiting from violating the rules.

Thanks for bringing it up, though. It is always helpful to research the rules.

Sorry, my previous post should have referred to the post by WADEINTOTHEM

Humor me and show me by rule that this scenario as described AUTOMATICALLY makes IFR in effect.

Rule 1.
Infield Fly Rule:
A fair fly ball, not including a line drive or an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second, or first,second,and third bases are occupied with less than two outs.

Rule 8-2 BATTER-RUNNER is out
.....
(I) When an Infield Fly is DECLARED

Rule 8-7...The RUNNER is out

(P) when, after being declared out.......an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

EFFECT: ....the ball is dead,,,The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out.

NOTE:....A runner continuing to run (may) be considered a form of interference.

Again, I am citing other rules in the ASA Rulebook which fully justify putting the runners back in the circumstances cited in the test question.

I am not disputing GREYMULE's wish for a better written rule regarding interference.

But in the unlikely event that this play would ever occur, there are exisiting rules that prevent the team from profiting from interference.

Forget about all that other stuff for now. Because I think you need to reread the definition until you understand it.

IFR is not automatic on infield popups with bases as described. EVER. NEVER. It's never automatic.

It is a Judgment call based on whether the umpire sees that the ball could be caught with ordinary effort.

If the scenario had stated "an infield pop up that could be caught with ordinary effort" - then you could bring IFR into the conversation, because that would have described a scenario involving IFR. It was not put there on purpose.

I honestly doubt this will help you, but that is the facts of proper application of IFR. You will continue to insist this is a clear IFR situation and rules prevent this scenario.. but you are more than incorrect.

You seem to miss my point. Maybe I am not being clear.

The question as stated allows only one answer.

But if that play ever really happens any umpire would be justified by the rule book in denying any advancement by any runner.

The original premise of all of this was common sense versus the rule book.
In this case common sense AND the rule book are on the same page.

Remember, the answer from ASA was "b," not "None of the above. The proper ruling is to call the IFR and send everybody back. Ha Ha."

But the IFR is actually irrelevant here. Whether it's called or not, and whether it should have been called or not, the BR still interfered with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. IFR simply makes the BR out. It does not affect ANYTHING else.

Incidentally, a runner continuing to run can be considered interference only if it is an obvious attempt to decoy the defense. The batter continuing to run after IFR is called or a runner who continues toward 3B after being forced out are not such cases.

But if that play ever really happens any umpire would be justified by the rule book in denying any advancement by any runner.

Then the answer should be "b," with a note that says, "However, the umpire should invoke 10-1-L, nullify the run, and send the runners back."

Incidentally, 10-1-L says, "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team." This means that the umpire has two options: (1) impose the penalty according to the rules, or (2) not impose the penalty. It doesn't say that the umpire has to option to set things right as he sees fit. And in this case, option (2) is clearly impossible. How can the umpire ignore the deliberate collision?

GREYMULE

I am not disputing your call for a rewrite or an exeption to the rule.
I am not saying that the question, as written,should have another answer.

I am saying that the play as described can be resolved within the existing rules without letting a run score.

The rule by the way on interference after being declared out reads
A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference,

In this case the batter is out when the umpire declares infield fly, and his continued running on the play you described would easily fit that interpretation.

But that's a copout to avoid addressing the real issue ...

So to make you address the real issue, make this hit a bunt instead of a swing.

I disagree on 2 points:

1. I don't see how the run can be nullified within the rules.

2. If the IFR is called, everybody in the park knows the BR is out. His continuing to run toward 1B cannot ipso facto be interference. Now if he kept running to 2B and drew a throw, or turned 1B and danced around between 1B and 2B, that's something else. Nothing says that a runner who is put out must stop running or be called for interference.

So to make you address the real issue, make this hit a bunt instead of a swing.

Good point. Or make it a pop that F1 charges and dives for halfway up the 1B line. Or make it runners at 1B and 3B, or 2B and 3B. The IFR is a red herring here.

GREYMULE:

1. I don't see how the run can be nullified within the rules.

I do, and I explained them.

2. If the IFR is called, everybody in the park knows the BR is out. His continuing to run toward 1B cannot ipso facto be interference. Now if he kept running to 2B and drew a throw, or turned 1B and danced around between 1B and 2B, that's something else. Nothing says that a runner who is put out must stop running or be called for interference.


A batter//runner is out when the infield fly rule is DECLARED.
A runner who continues to run after being declared out may be considered to have committed intereference.
Both of these are stated in the rule book.
In the case sited, any batter runner who is out by rule can also be called for interference if he/she continues to run where a fielder is attempting to make a play.

"near the 1B line". IFR cannot be effected until the batted ball is fair, therefore the BR is NOT until that is determined.

There is no way R1 can be returned to 3B in this play. It's not a great ruling, but it is by the book.

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.

I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

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

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

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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.