ASA crash
 

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.

I wouldn't think there would be much of anything to learn from MLB on crashing that could be applied to amateur softball. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I think the ASA rule book has this one fairly well-covered, though my book is in the car, so I can't quote the exact rule. Should be in rule 8, section 7 (The runner is out if...). My interpretation is that a deliberate crash at any time, live ball or dead ball awarded bases, results in that player being out and possibly ejected if the contact is flagrant. If that's the third out in the situation you described, no runners can score after him, but the over-the-fence still counts towards their limit. If the offense wants to complain, tell them to complain to their runner who took at least two runs off the board. :P

I wouldn't think there would be much of anything to learn from MLB on crashing that could be applied to amateur softball. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I'm not trying to find a parallel with MLB. It was just yesterday's crash that got me thinking about how that play would be called in ASA. In MLB, going out of your way to deliberately crash into a catcher who doesn't have the ball is not technically illegal, though it does violate "etiquette" and will provoke retaliation.

My only question was, In ASA, can the umpire declare the runner out if he commits such a violation before he touches home plate?

Should be in rule 8, section 7 (The runner is out if...). My interpretation is that a deliberate crash at any time, live ball or dead ball awarded bases, results in that player being out and possibly ejected if the contact is flagrant.

Section 8-7 covers a crash when the fielder has the ball, not a deliberate crash into a fielder who does not have the ball.

The ump could, and should! There's simply no call for that kind of unsportsmanlike action, and it should immediately result in a penalty. It's been my experience that if an umpire fails to act quickly on this, s/he's going to have a mess on their hands when other players want retribution of their own kind. Players start coming out of dugouts, gloves get dropped, things get heated fast.

Very true, and I stand corrected. I'd still call the player out and toss him for USC.

definitely !!!

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.

Will do! Just gotta wait until I'm off from work. :)

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.

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.

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. :)

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? :)

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.