The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 09:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
It was always the mantra that USC in ASA was an ejection, but not an out. At least, that is the "mantra" that I believed. Then, along came the famous case play that ruled a runner out for "flagrant misconduct" - specifically, throwing the bat in anger. That case play was backed up by the thinnest of rules citations, and was obviously an interpretation rather that black-letter rule. OK, so if that is the interpretation ASA wants, and since the ruling was for "flagrant misconduct" it could be applied more generally.

Apparently, the case play was NOT universally accepted among the NUS, and now it has disappeared. From its removal, I infer that ASA no longer wants an out called for "flagrant misconduct" and hence, I infer we are back to black-letter rule on this. The players can be ejected but not declared out unless there are additional infractions (such as interference) that would result in the out (crashing into a fielder in possession of the ball, for example).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 03:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Without referencing individuals;

The former interpretation was issued by the former Deputy Director of Umpires. However, as you note, there never was specific rule coverage applicable.

The current Director of Umpires is directing the NUS to only use interpretations which can be supported by rule; this was intentionally removed from the casebook for that reason.

I would conclude that a runner is not out for an intentional crash with a fielder without the ball; just ejected for USC.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Without referencing individuals;

The former interpretation was issued by the former Deputy Director of Umpires. However, as you note, there never was specific rule coverage applicable.

The current Director of Umpires is directing the NUS to only use interpretations which can be supported by rule; this was intentionally removed from the casebook for that reason.

I would conclude that a runner is not out for an intentional crash with a fielder without the ball; just ejected for USC.
Well, let me toss this out there, and keep in mind my book is back in my car. Again. The rule book (roughly) states that if we apply a rule, the ruling must not be in favor of the team at fault.

Wouldn't allowing the runner to score be ruling in favor of the team at fault?

Also, if umpires aren't allowed to use their discretion on plays that aren't covered in the rule book, why does rule 10-1 even exist? My interpretation of that rule is exactly as I had mentioned before: if it ain't in the book, it's umpire's discretion to determine the call based on the integrity of the game, guided by the spirit of the rule book. I know, I know, sounds a bit like a lofty concept, but I could think of no other way to phrase it.
__________________
Dave

I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views!

Screw green, it ain't easy being blue!

I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again.

Last edited by NCASAUmp; Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:43pm.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 04:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
Well, let me toss this out there, and keep in mind my book is back in my car. Again. The rule book (roughly) states that if we apply a rule, the ruling must not be in favor of the team at fault.

Wouldn't allowing the runner to score be ruling in favor of the team at fault?
No, the ruling does not favor that team. The team earned that as if was their play which placed the runner were they were at the time of the player's indiscretion.

Quote:
Also, if umpires aren't allowed to use their discretion on plays that aren't covered in the rule book, why does rule 10-1 even exist? My interpretation of that rule is exactly as I had mentioned before: if it ain't in the book, it's umpire's discretion to determine the call based on the integrity of the game, guided by the spirit of the rule book. I know, I know, sounds a bit like a lofty concept, but I could think of no other way to phrase it.
If you cannot see it here, you can catch it on eteamz. You do not want people, umpires, coaches or anyone else, making it up as they go along. You would have rulings based on what someone did 40 years ago on the sand lot field or what some couch potato saw in the MLB the previous night.

I, as the umpire, do not want such liberty as there isn't even a remote chance any such rulings would be consistant across the state, let alone the nation.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 10:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
No, the ruling does not favor that team. The team earned that as if was their play which placed the runner were they were at the time of the player's indiscretion.
I figured as much, but still wanted to see what people would say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
I, as the umpire, do not want such liberty as there isn't even a remote chance any such rulings would be consistant across the state, let alone the nation.
Oh, agreed! Consistency among umpires definitely goes right out the window, but the fact remains the rule is still there, and can be used for good or bad. I would reserve the right to use it only under the most bizarre circumstances, only after exhausting every possibility of using the rules down to the letter.

However, the possibility of a runner committing a flagrant act like this on a fielder that's nowhere near making a play on him is highly likely. For example, R1 on 2nd and B2 hits a deep gap shot to the outfield. While approaching 3rd base, R1 takes a cheap shot at F5 while the ball is still being recovered by the outfielders. I'm sure something like this has happened at least 100 times already, but there's no actual rule that spells it out.

Perhaps ASA could consider spelling this out a little clearer? Put it in 8-8? Maybe 4-8? Seeing the variety of answers here (and by the umps I've asked in the field), I think it would be worth it to see their intentions in black and white.
__________________
Dave

I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views!

Screw green, it ain't easy being blue!

I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 08, 2007, 11:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule
We recently discussed a play (from an old ASA test) in which the batter is called out for throwing his bat in anger before his fly ball goes over the fence. We noted that the case book does not contain that play, and that the interpretation has been discredited or rejected.

However, an outgrowth of that interpretation was that a runner who, before touching home plate, deliberately crashed the catcher while the ball was still in the outfield could be called out for doing so, the run being nullified. The idea was that if a batter could be called out for "flagrant misconduct," so could a runner.

I taught that interpretation in a couple of clinics. However, I'm wondering whether now the call should be score the run and then eject the runner.

The Phelps-Johjima crash in yesterday's Yankees-Mariners game caused me to reconsider this. Note that in the MLB game, Phelps wasn't even ejected after an obviously intentional and unnecessary crash of a catcher who did not have the ball. Of course, retaliation followed from the mound.

We recently discussed a play (from an old ASA test) in which the batter is called out for throwing his bat in anger before his fly ball goes over the fence. We noted that the case book does not contain that play, and that the interpretation has been discredited or rejected.



Discredited or rejected by whom?
The case book is still valid in my opionion, since it was a 2005/06 book.

Does the current case book say to disregard previous interpretations?

Common sense says a player who commits an ejectable offense before scoring is out and his run(even on an awarded base) cannot count.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 09, 2007, 12:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Back in TX, formerly Seattle area
Posts: 1,279
Sorry...I was just trying to make a point and didn't mean to run afoul of the nice police.
__________________
John
An ucking fidiot

Last edited by bkbjones; Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:30pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crash interference Dakota Softball 7 Mon Jul 10, 2006 04:15pm
What is a crash? DaveASA/FED Softball 11 Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:59am
Crash? TERRY1 Softball 5 Thu Jun 13, 2002 01:45pm
Crash Course Please? Just Curious Baseball 1 Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:28am
Crash Rule LIBLUE Softball 22 Mon Mar 04, 2002 09:38pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1