ASA crash

[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.