Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

[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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

You know, sometimes you are so full of crap irish. Why is that? Why are you built that way? As a state UIC you have potential.. and then, you come up with your BS when you have no argument. Stick to the facts.

I favor the rule as it is and have fended off your idiotic childish vitrol since. Do you have argument that is not vitrol? 15th innning and lay out the catcher.. that is so lame you should be ashamed of yourself to be using it as your banner argument for your little lame rule change.

Spare me your handwringing about the children and tell me why the heck I need an out if the defender does have the ball and potentially not even close to having the ball? A punitive out that every skinny little idiot 3B coach wants and argues for.. but doesnt know the rule... every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way.

its obs and you are whimping wanting an out for a little tap.

Thats the point of the rule.

We dont need an out and we can already eject them if it reaches that level.

[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.