ASA crash

[Dakota]

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).

[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.

[NCASAUmp]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

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.

[NCASAUmp]

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.

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.

[jimpiano]

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.

[bkbjones]

Sorry...I was just trying to make a point and didn't mean to run afoul of the nice police.