What's the call?

[IRISHMAFIA]

This has been posted on multiple boards, respond as you like.

Speaking ASA. All games.

Bases loaded, 1 out, bottom of 7th, Home team down by one. Visitors playing shorthanded on defense. A definite pull hitter is the batter and the defense shifts to the left side. F5 is even with the base, F6 is deep near the grass, F3 moves to a position normally covered by F4 and F1 is assigned to cover 1B and F9 playing shallow.

Two-hopper up the middle is fielded by F3 who flips to F6 at 2B, who, in turn, doubles-up the BR at 1B with a bullit to F1 as R1 crosses the plate.

BU rings up two outs to end the game, but Home coach wants to protest due to the use of an illegal glove by the defense.

Where do you go from here?

[oppool]

I am assuming you are speaking of F3 being the one with the illegal glove because he moved out of area where he is permitted to use a 1st basemans' mitt and I am assuming the appeal was made before the infielders left the playing field. If so then the appeal would be upheld and the offensive coach has the option of having the play nullified and the batter assuming the previous count with the runners returning to their bases or the coach can take the result of the play. In this situation we hope the coach is smart enough to nullify the play.

No disqualification or ejection that I know of for a player using a illegal glove and I assume F3 will go back and play his regualar position now

ASA rule 8-9-O and POE 22


Did I pass??

Don

[bluezebra]

If F3 is the defensive player closest to 1B at the time of the pitch, he/she is still F3.

Bob

[Del-Blue]

I'm going home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even though the first baseperson was not actually playing where he/she normally would(I assume this is the glove the coach is objecting to) there are no other fielders playing in that position. Therefore I am telling the coach that he/she is still considered the firstbase person. I will also add very good point coach, but it ain't going to fly.

All of this is after I make sure the player with the mitt not actually playing in the normal first base position is the glove the coach is protesting.


This is the same IMMHO as when the firstbase person and the short stop and the third baseperson all play on an arch even with the pitcher during an obvious bunt situation, then the secondbase person moves over closer to first to assume firstbase coverage.

Just my opinion....YMMV


Ooooooooooooops. Damn, first time I've been wrong in years..............
:>) :>) :>) :>) :>)

Now I have to rethink the above play during an obvious bunt play.

Here is a question, Can I stop this play from happening, or do I need to wait to see if the offense appeals the illegal glove????????????

[Edited by Del-Blue on Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:54 AM]

[Dakota]

I assume, Mike, you are drawing our attention to the new POE 22 for 2002.

The vagueness is what defines the "area F3 would normally cover"?

What is "normally?"

I'd say playing in on a bunt is "normal" but shifting to cover 2B (in F4's normal position) is not, even if F3 remains the closest fielder to 1B.

Invoke 8-9-O.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

ASA also clarified the definition of an "Infielder" for 2002.........

Along with POE#22.......I would have to say the mitt was illegal........and go with 8-9-0 as Dakota has noted.....

Joel

[IRISHMAFIA]

Proper ruling:

If the umpire's do not correct the situation at the coach's request, a protest will be upheld based on Rule 8.9.O and POE #22.

In this scenario, the offensive coach has the choice of accepting the play as it unfolded or having the play nullified by reseting the field as it was prior to last pitch. F3 should then be told that if s/he intends to play a position other than what a first baseman normally covers, the mitt must be left in the dugout or they will not be allowed to play.

It has nothing to do with what an umpire believes should be fair or not. Please note that this can be avoided by alert preventive umpiring. Also, this rule concerns where the fielder is located at the time the pitch begins, not where the fielder may be when making a play on a batted ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

For anyone who visits McGriffs, you may be aware that this play got a bit of an argument and the claim that a member of the National Staff ruled otherwise.

Well, as it turns out, no such ruling was made. However, the NS umpire did feel that the ruling could be different than what was offered and is passing it on to a higher authority. It was his opinion that the POE was inserted to stop some of the ridiculous shifts that apparently occur at one level or another and that in the play offered here, it may not apply.

I will keep you informed as to how this POE will be clarified by ASA.

[mo99]

I was hesitant to reply to this situation until I was able to research my rulebooks.I do however disagree with the umpires that said they would invoke ASA rule 8-9-0.The best explanation of this rule was found in the NCAA Softball Rulebook.Under rule 3-5 it states,In order for the first baseman to be entitled to use a first baseman's mitt,she must be positioned on the right side of the infield at the time of the pitch.Here a definite area is defined.I am a strong believer in applying the spirit of the rules in my umpiring.In the situation in question,I have nothing,since the firstbaseman was shifted,but remained on the right side of the infield.My question to you guys(and gals),what advantage was gained by the firstbaseman fielding the ball with the mitt?As as former first baseman in high school and legion baseball,I would have much preferred to use a fielders glove for fielding a batted ball.The larger mitt is designed for receiving thrown balls that stray off target and for scooping throws in the dirt.There is no advantage on batted balls,particularly ground balls.In this case with the firstbaseman shifted and still on the right side of the diamond,I have nothing.Just my opinion on this rules application. Jeff

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mo99
I was hesitant to reply to this situation until I was able to research my rulebooks.I do however disagree with the umpires that said they would invoke ASA rule 8-9-0.The best explanation of this rule was found in the NCAA Softball Rulebook.Under rule 3-5 it states,In order for the first baseman to be entitled to use a first baseman's mitt,she must be positioned on the right side of the infield at the time of the pitch.Here a definite area is defined.I am a strong believer in applying the spirit of the rules in my umpiring.In the situation in question,I have nothing,since the firstbaseman was shifted,but remained on the right side of the infield.My question to you guys(and gals),what advantage was gained by the firstbaseman fielding the ball with the mitt?As as former first baseman in high school and legion baseball,I would have much preferred to use a fielders glove for fielding a batted ball.The larger mitt is designed for receiving thrown balls that stray off target and for scooping throws in the dirt.There is no advantage on batted balls,particularly ground balls.In this case with the firstbaseman shifted and still on the right side of the diamond,I have nothing.Just my opinion on this rules application. Jeff

Jeff,

The problem here is that the discussion is strictly ASA and has nothing to do with NCAA.

You mentioned a shift. Well, ASA POE #22 specifically mentions a defensive shift in effecting this rule. The caveat being that F3 leaves the position normally covered by F3, not the right side of the infield.

I'm not discussing right or wrong, just what is the only printed reference for this case. Having discussed this with a Nat Staff member, I know what they are trying to accomplish, it just wasn't stated very well. I was told this would be addressed to the top and expect a change in next year's book.

Until then, I would only enforce this if the shift placed a defender other than F3 closer to 1B for some strange reason. But, as with most rule changes, something had to happen somewhere to get this into the book. d:-)