Another ASA Play

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Has anyone else every noticed the discrepency in the definition and how its used in the book?

It is a matter of communicating in an effectual and understandable manner.

Enough people have a problem dealing with the player designations at the beginning of a play. Could you imagine how difficult it would be if it changed midplay?

B4, with a 3-2 count, hits a ball to RC. Seeing the ball get past F9, the BR moves wide into foul territory to round 1B. Still watching the ball, R4 bumps into F3 and ....

Three separate designations of a player in a single play that isn't even over yet.

[IRISHMAFIA]

---

0 outs, R1 on 2B. B2 hits a grounder to F6 who makes a play to 1B. The BR just beats the throw, but only touches the white portion of the double base.

As F3 throws to 3B in an attempt to get the late-breaking R1, B2 takes a hard left and continues to 2B.

R1 is tagged out. The defense then makes a live ball appeal that B2 missed 1B since he did not tag the colored portion of the base. The umpires consult and rule that the appeal is not applicable and B2 safe.

The defense then protests the game on the basis of the umpire crew's misinterpretation of rule 8.2.M.3

The PU refuses to accept the protest. Is this correct? If not, why?

As noted, rule 9.1.2 notes that a protest based upon the misinterpretation of a rule must be made before the next play.

The discussion is base upon the throw to 3B AFTER the BR missed the base. Some consider this the "next play".

After making a fool of myself by questioning the requirement of "next play" thanks to a brain fart that reverted to "appeal" as opposed to protest, it was explained, if I remember correctly as that is not the manner in which that qualification was intended.

Someone can correct me if wrong. The line of thought was that by using this to refuse the appeal, you are pretty much giving the offending team a break.

However, the more I think about it, I don't believe there really is a problem with the sentence. If used as I believe it was meant, in the play above the misinterpretation of the rule occurred when the umpire determined there was no violation by the BR.

Hence, there was no play between the misinterpretation and the protest. A team cannot protest an interpretation prior to it being made.

[ronald]

Mike,

Sorry, have read your last post zillions of times and have not a clue as to what is right, left, up or down.
Thanks, Ron

[AtlUmpSteve]

There were several important issues in this play. The following is the official ruling and thought process.

When a play was made at 1st base on the BR, the BR was required to touch the orange bag. Touching only the white bag is a missed base, and can be appealed until the runner returns to either bag. In this case the runner proceeded to 2nd, so the runner did, in fact miss touching the correct base.

The attempt to retire the other runner is not considered a next play; it is a continuation of the current play, would be considered a subsequent play on a different runner under the obstruction exception, but has no bearing on an appeal. When appealed, the correct ruling should be "out". If the ruling is that the BR did touch the orange bag, then that part would be judgment, but any statement that touching white alone would be allowed is a misinterpretation of a playing rule. Since there was no play made between the misinterpretation and the protest, the protest must be allowed; and since the rule was misapplied in the case play (if not clearly stated in the OP), the ruling must be overturned.

So, don't be confused by the "next play"; it was a red herring in the case play, and sure bit Mike. Once the continuing action ended, and time is called (in slow pitch) or could be called (in fast pitch) to hear a dead ball appeal, then and only then can there be a "next play" that would halt a legal protest.

[ronald]

thanks.

[azbigdawg]

Mike still owes me a beer for his public "oops" on this one.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Mike still owes me a beer for his public "oops" on this one.....

Wait a minute! Seems to me, I picked up a nice sized check on Saturday night...or was it Sunday morning?. I think it covered about six states.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

---

After making a fool of myself by questioning the requirement of "next play" thanks to a brain fart that reverted to "appeal" as opposed to protest, it was explained, if I remember correctly as that is not the manner in which that qualification was intended.

Someone can correct me if wrong. The line of thought was that by using this to refuse the appeal, you are pretty much giving the offending team a break.

However, the more I think about it, I don't believe there really is a problem with the sentence. If used as I believe it was meant, in the play above the misinterpretation of the rule occurred when the umpire determined there was no violation by the BR.

Hence, there was no play between the misinterpretation and the protest. A team cannot protest an interpretation prior to it being made.

Are you the person writing some of those ASA test questions?

Ted

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Are you the person writing some of those ASA test questions?

Ted

Nah, he's the "editor."

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Are you the person writing some of those ASA test questions?

Ted

I know the question was facetious. Still, the process, as I understand it, is the members of the NUS present proposed questions to KR. He uses his Deputy Supervisors (one or some, primarily JJ) to help edit, but he is the primary test compiler (as opposed to author).