Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, you have no problem with a runner scoring by wiping out a catcher without the ball?

To be honest? No, I really dont see this as an issue. I like the leeway of not having to make a call on a crash when the defender doesnt have the ball and it falls short of OSC.

Why would I want that discretion taken away from me?

I do like keeping runners on the bases (or vicinity) for catcher conferences proposal. ----

Have you run into a problem with this?

Not really..

I would think this would be more of a problem with the opposing coach trying to find any type of ridiculous edge demand an ejection fo a coach not in what s/he thinks is proper. But, that wouldn't be my problem as I would immediately direct that coach to the TD

That too..either way, I got other things to do than be a fashion consultant.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

To be honest? No, I really dont see this as an issue. I like the leeway of not having to make a call on a crash when the defender doesnt have the ball and it falls short of OSC.

Why would I want that discretion taken away from me?

You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball

Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.

Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone. If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC. As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play. The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball

The defender should not be there without the ball.

Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.

A runner altering their route to plow a defender is USC.

Look at this one, F6 is standing in a position, runner crashes her.

I am to expect a runner to slide at the 30' mark between the bases?

A catcher is 15' up the line without the ball? Runner slide?

Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone.

No, I dont have a problem with it to the point of USC. Why should I?

I believe the proposed change most certainly removes discretion. I know it when I see it, I dont need or want a medium penalty for nonUSC crash.

If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC.

I can act right now on borderline USC anytime I want. I tell the coach and/or player to chill it. I dont need a rule to enforce a penalty on borderline USC. It is or it isnt.. if its close I can tell them to chill.

As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play.

The "only"

The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.

As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.

I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.

I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...

Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Or if it passes, just remember that at the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs and the WINNING run wipes out the catcher, the same thing happens.

Though, I think I'd rather have the latter than the former.

[bkbjones]

One of the "problems" -- just as it was for obstruction and other matters in the past -- is that all 8,000 or however many umpires we have in ASA don't (or won't) call the same thing the same way. For instance, in a national I worked about five or so years ago a catcher was trying to throw out a runner attempting to steal third base. The batter did nothing at all intentional, but the thrown ball struck the bat. I had a nothing. My partner, however called a dead ball and ruled the runner out for batter's interference.

Even though it wasn't his call, and in my judgement was not interference, he insisted. Of course the coaches wanted the UIC there immediately. The UIC upheld his umpire's call. I was mad as hell but I got over it.

Now, of course, we don't have to judge intent.

I know unsportsmanlike conduct when I see it. I know an unintentional crash from someone intentionally trying to take someone out. Alas, some of our brethren either don't, because they don't, or won't for fear of some consequence, make the call. Hence, it may very well have to be legislated whether we like it or not.

IMHO, no need for the legislation.

[topper]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

For instance, in a national I worked about five or so years ago a catcher was trying to throw out a runner attempting to steal third base. The batter did nothing at all intentional, but the thrown ball struck the bat. I had a nothing. My partner, however called a dead ball and ruled the runner out for batter's interference.
........ I was mad as hell but I got over it.

Unless it was strike 3 on the batter, why was the runner out?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

No rule is ever a good rule unless you can use it to make children cry. Sprawled on the floor. While laughing.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

[shakes head slowly]

Originally Posted by topper

Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.