Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

[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?

[SethPDX]

Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him.

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

[topper]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

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?

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

[shakes head slowly]

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.

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.
________
Wellbutrin lawsuit settlements

[SethPDX]

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

What the hell is it with this thread? Does no one read what is actually posted?

If the ruling was interference, the player causing the INT is to be ruled out. We understand that INT probably should not have been called. However, it was and the ruling was upheld. The penalty for INT by a batter is that the batter is ruled out, NOT THE RUNNER. All runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT.

And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

[topper]

Originally Posted by youngump

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.

Actually, my point is that the ruling was incorrect, forget about judgement. While I can do little about a partner missing calls, I will not allow my partner to kick a rule. Both umpires take the blame for this. The icing on the cake is the UIC upholding the ruling. All this happening at a National? Unfortunately, I am not surprised.