Out or award base or bases

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

In my cave, when ASA 1.Catch and Carry says:
"A legal catch that a defensive player carries into dead ball territory."

I believe it is pretty much stating that the rules for a legal catch come into play. With that in mind, if F7 didn't 'legally catch' the ball, then we can't apply the unintentional catch/carry rule, ASA 8.5.J

where does 8.5.J ever mention having to have caught the ball?

It says "when a live ball is unintentionally carried by a fielder from live ball territory". Then gives an example of a fielder running into a dugout to tag a player. Effect ball is dead and all runners are awarded one base from where they were when the ball left the field of play.

Why does this not apply to this situation...ball touched in fair ball and was unintentionally carried out of play.

8.5.I deals with a ball "Deflects off a defensive player and goes out of play into foul ball territory". This ball never deflected. Also talks about a fair batted ball that bounces over or goes through the fence.

To me looks like 8.5.J. is the most applicable rule.

[MNBlue]

Without actually defining 'carried', in my judgement, ASA is stating (ASA 1. Catch and Carry plus 8.5.J) that in order to carry a ball, it must be legally caught. If it is not legally caught, then it was never in control of the defensive player and couldn't be carried.

That is the way I am interpreting those two rules.

I might be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time, just the next.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

To start, there is no catch.

As previously noted, if first touch was over foul territory, it is simply a foul ball.

If fair, it is a ground rule double based upon 8.5.I. Since there was never control on the field of play, I don't see how this can be handled any differently than a ball which deflects off a fielder and out of play.

After more thought and reading think I am going to change my opinion and go with the 2 base award on a fair ball.

However, if it is first touched foul and ruled foul, would you not award 1 base to the other runners?

[snorman75]

I LOVE this question first!!

Ok let me try.

First, it is a fair ball. we all know that
As for the catch, I would have to see it. Since all the fun is with no catch lets go with that.
Now I am sure on the spot after calling no catch and fair ball, I would award one base for everyone.
But I love this idea of a double, and I think it is right. Lets say a line drive to the right fielder, it bounces and hits the fielder in the head and bounces over the fence. That is a double. We have the same thing here, since there was never control for a catch.
With that I would award the batter 2nd forcing in one run and moving the runner from second to 3rd.

again GREAT situation.

[DaveASA/FED]

ok so we are saying a ground rule double, not a two base award from the time it went out of play. So R1 scores and R2 is on 3rd with BR on second. Which of course is different than the two base from point where it went out of play as R2 would also score on that!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

ok so we are saying a ground rule double, not a two base award from the time it went out of play. So R1 scores and R2 is on 3rd with BR on second. Which of course is different than the two base from point where it went out of play as R2 would also score on that!

Everybody but me seems to be getting there. I still think that this is a ball that is directed out of play not deflected. And I'd go with the latter.
________
Colorado Medical Marijuana Dispensary

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

After more thought and reading think I am going to change my opinion and go with the 2 base award on a fair ball.

However, if it is first touched foul and ruled foul, would you not award 1 base to the other runners?

Why would you?

It wasn't a catch/carry with a fair ball - we awarded 2 bases to the batter and all runners because we had a fair batted ball enter DBT.

If we have an uncaught foul ball, which we do, we aren't going to advance runners.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

Everybody but me seems to be getting there. I still think that this is a ball that is directed out of play not deflected. And I'd go with the latter.

If you're going to say the fielder intentionally put a fair ball into dead ball territory (without ever gaining control of it - lack of a legal catch), that is up to you. Be prepared for the fall out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

#1. How can a player carry a ball that, by rule, they have not caught?

#2. I think there is no question that the runner's departure from the field of play was not intentional in any manner, let alone to prevent runners from advancing.

#3. It seems there are a few folks trying to insert conditions not provided for in this and a few other scenarios recently.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Everybody but me seems to be getting there. I still think that this is a ball that is directed out of play not deflected. And I'd go with the latter.

Hence, your moniker!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

ok so we are saying a ground rule double, not a two base award from the time it went out of play. So R1 scores and R2 is on 3rd with BR on second. Which of course is different than the two base from point where it went out of play as R2 would also score on that!

Why wouldn't you award both R1 (originally on 3rd) and R2 (originally on 2nd) home on a ground rule double?

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Why would you?

It wasn't a catch/carry with a fair ball - we awarded 2 bases to the batter and all runners because we had a fair batted ball enter DBT.

If we have an uncaught foul ball, which we do, we aren't going to advance runners.

Had a blonde moment!! I was thinking too much into it!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

#1. How can a player carry a ball that, by rule, they have not caught?

In his hat?

In the crook of his arm?

Balanced on the tip of his nose?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hence, your moniker!

Inexperience may be exactly the cause, but go through it with me anyway. I am going to double check the book on this one when I get home.

But this goes back to my question that you didn't answer. Here it is with more detail. Would you give a ground rule double if while fielding a ball near the out of play line it's kicked out of play after the batter gets past 1st? If it had happened last night, I'd have given them third. But from this discussion it seems the general consensus is that is still a ground rule double?

I thought that if a player goes to play on a ball that is in play and they inadvertently cause that ball to go out of play that we had two bases from the time of the mistake not two bases from the pitch (which is the result of a book rule double).

As for intent, that's how I read the OP. She figured she had the third out and ran the rest of the way into the dugout. The OP says she took three steps after the catch. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure that's relevant.
________
Glass weed pipe

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Would you give a ground rule double if while fielding a ball near the out of play line it's kicked out of play after the batter gets past 1st?

Yes.

I thought that if a player goes to play on a ball that is in play and they inadvertently cause that ball to go out of play that we had two bases from the time of the mistake not two bases from the pitch (which is the result of a book rule double).

Rule book clearly says all runners get two bases from the TOP (8.5.I.Effect)

As for intent, that's how I read the OP. She figured she had the third out and ran the rest of the way into the dugout. The OP says she took three steps after the catch. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure that's relevant.

Well, intent is something you have to judge. Since the player was struggling to get control of the ball, I doubt she had control of herself. As I read the OP, is seemed that the gate being where she was heading is consequential.

However, you may be right, but since it wasn't clearly stated that it was intentional, I did not address it. If Canump comes back and states it seemed intentional, then we have another scenario with which to deal.