ASA vs NFHS

[rwest]

ASA does not appear to have a malicious contact rule. At least I don't recall reading it and I can't find it. So what is the ruling on this play for both ASA and FED.

R1 rounds third and is heading for home. Catcher, without the ball, is up the third base line blocking the runners path to home. There is no doubt about obstruction. The runner, instead of going around the catcher, runs her over.

What do you have for ASA?

What do you have for Fed?

Thanks in advance!

[wadeintothem]

yes asa has a malicious contact rule.. this scenario would not be crash INT.

ASA also has USC.

Not sure what I'd have in your play for either ASA or Fed... possibly USC.

[sbatten]

Originally Posted by rwest

R1 rounds third and is heading for home. Catcher, without the ball, is up the third base line blocking the runners path to home. There is no doubt about obstruction. The runner, instead of going around the catcher, runs her over.

What do you have for ASA?

Given the fact that it's clearly obstruction, runner would be safe at home (assuming she actually touches the plate). The only thing that would supersede OBS is if she commits INT, which she did not. Run counts.

Then after the play is over, I would consider tossing R1 for unsportsmanlike conduct. Have to see it, but if she lowers her shoulder or makes an obvious attempt to cream F2, then she's gone (once the play is finished).

Separate question for the group: could F2 also be guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct and tossed as well?

Scott

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Given the fact that it's clearly obstruction, runner would be safe at home (assuming she actually touches the plate). The only thing that would supersede OBS is if she commits INT, which she did not. Run counts.

Then after the play is over, I would consider tossing R1 for unsportsmanlike conduct. Have to see it, but if she lowers her shoulder or makes an obvious attempt to cream F2, then she's gone (once the play is finished).

Separate question for the group: could F2 also be guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct and tossed as well?

Scott

I'm not tossing F2 just for committing obstruction. I've already got a book-rule penalty for that. Now, if F2 turns/gets up and then goes after the runner who just leveled her - yeah, now I have 2 to toss.

edited to fix damage by fat fingers.

btw, if I see a lowered shoulder or some other offensive move by the runner in preparing for the crash, I'm going to also see that as interference and not allow the run - in addition to USC.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Given the fact that it's clearly obstruction, runner would be safe at home (assuming she actually touches the plate). The only thing that would supersede OBS is if she commits INT, which she did not. Run counts.

The runner is out for malicious contact. Per rule 8-6-14 "Malicious contact supersedes obstruction". But is the ruling the same in ASA? I can't find "malicious contact" in the rule book. Where is USC defined? I find Crash Interference, but that only applies when the fielder has the ball.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

The runner is out for malicious contact. Per rule 8-6-14 "Malicious contact supersedes obstruction". But is the ruling the same in ASA? I can't find "malicious contact" in the rule book. Where is USC defined? I find Crash Interference, but that only applies when the fielder has the ball.

USC is left to the umpire's discretion in ASA. Not everything needs to be strictly defined.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

USC is left to the umpire's discretion in ASA. Not everything needs to be strictly defined.

You can't call someone out for something that doesn't exist or isn't codified. Somewhere it should say USC is an ejectionable offense. It doesn't have to define everything that is USC, but it should mention USC somewhere.