ASA crash

[3afan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, the case play has disappeared. It was the ONLY written backing for ruling a runner out for flagrant misconduct.

So, NCASAUMP and 3afan, please cite your rule for calling the runner out.

not having a rulebook with me ... malicious contact is an ejection ... isnt that what we're talking about here? malicious contact?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by 3afan

not having a rulebook with me ... malicious contact is an ejection ... isnt that what we're talking about here? malicious contact?

My question was about calling the runner out, not the ejection.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by 3afan

not having a rulebook with me ... malicious contact is an ejection ... isnt that what we're talking about here? malicious contact?

I think you're referring to "deliberately crashes with great force." That's the rule that greymule was referring to in response to my statement, and greymule is correct - it refers to a runner who "deliberately crashes with great force" into a fielder... with the ball. As such, that rule does not directly apply.

[NCASAUmp]

Okay, so I looked into this like a good umpire should, and greymule is 110% correct - I could find no rule that specifically covers this situation, which is actually a bit surprising.

I just got back from calling 3 games tonight, and I asked a number of the other vets on our crew about this scenario. They all said the same thing I said: runner's out, tossed, and if third out, no runners after and including him may score, but the home run may count towards the limit.

Since there is nothing specifically covering this scenario in the rule book, I would have to say that this might have to fall under (cringe cringe) rule 10-1. I *hate* falling back on that rule, but that's what it's there for. It's impossible for ASA (or any ruling body, for that matter) to account for every single thing that can and will happen on a field.

If you agree with me and someday, god forbid, have to make that ruling, you'd better be able to sell your explanation pretty well.

What do others think about this? In this case, I don't think I'm wrong, but being that it's not specifically covered in the rules, that doesn't make me right.

[greymule]

I think if you asked 100 softball players (and as many umpires), "What is the call if the runner deliberately crashes into the catcher before the throw arrives?" almost everyone would answer "the runner is out and ejected."

So you might be safe in making that call.

But is it the correct call by rule?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by greymule

I think if you asked 100 softball players (and as many umpires), "What is the call if the runner deliberately crashes into the catcher before the throw arrives?" almost everyone would answer "the runner is out and ejected."

So you might be safe in making that call.

But is it the correct call by rule?

Are you asking me? Or turning it back to everyone else?

[greymule]

Are you asking me? Or turning it back to everyone else?

Everyone.

At an ASA clinic in 2000 (before the throwing-the-bat-in-anger case play appeared), I was told that a deliberate crash, even if the fielder didn't have the ball, should result in an out and an ejection. When I pursued the matter as to where in the book it says to call an out, one of the clinicians replied, "It falls under interference. It's a form of interference." Later in the day, when I informed them that I had looked through "interference" and couldn't find it, they said, "It may not be there in black and white, but that's the interpretation." I didn't want to be remembered as the guy who wouldn't let an issue go, so I shut up about it after that.

Then we had the case play that seemed to support such a call, but that has since been rescinded. This question and others like it appear so often that I wonder why the case book doesn't include a page or two of nothing but crashes of various kinds.

[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).