ASA 2009 Casebook Play Confusion

[SergioJ]

OK, just looked over the ASA 2009 Casebook and Play 1-57 is confusing to me. Here is what this scenario says:

OBSTRUCTION
PLAY 1-57
With no outs and R1 on 3B, B2 hits a fly ball to right field that is caught. Prior to the ball reaching F9, (a) F5 yells "go," or (b) the coach for the defense in the 3B dugout yells "go." In both cases, R1 leaves 3B too soon and the defense properly appeals.
RULING: R1 is not out. Although this is a distracting act, there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling. R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction. (1-OBSTRUCTION-B)

So, if R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction, and there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling, then why is R1 not out if defense properly appealed?

Serg

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SergioJ

OK, just looked over the ASA 2009 Casebook and Play 1-57 is confusing to me. Here is what this scenario says:

OBSTRUCTION
PLAY 1-57
With no outs and R1 on 3B, B2 hits a fly ball to right field that is caught. Prior to the ball reaching F9, (a) F5 yells "go," or (b) the coach for the defense in the 3B dugout yells "go." In both cases, R1 leaves 3B too soon and the defense properly appeals.
RULING: R1 is not out. Although this is a distracting act, there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling. R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction. (1-OBSTRUCTION-B)

So, if R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction, and there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling, then why is R1 not out if defense properly appealed?

Serg

Actually, I think this play was covered before. It is not a correct response as given.

Personally, I could sell an OBS call here if I believed there actually was OBS. It would take something extremely serious to reach that point, not just yelling "go". A comparable question would be if a runner went behind a fielder waiting for a pop up and screamed, "I got it", or "mine, mine, mine" in an obvious manner to screw up the fielder, would you call INT?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by ASA 2009 Casebook and Play 1-57J
[I

R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction. (1-OBSTRUCTION-B)[/I]

So, if the OC yelled "GO", but then the DC yelled, "DEAD BALL..." causing the runner to stop and then be tagged out, is the runner supposed to know the difference between the DC and Umpire's voice?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

So, if the OC yelled "GO", but then the DC yelled, "DEAD BALL..." causing the runner to stop and then be tagged out, is the runner supposed to know the difference between the DC and Umpire's voice?

Stop and think about that for a minute, Tony.
In the casebook, the defense - player and/or coach - yells an instruction to the runner that the runner's own base coach normally yells. The runner is expected to know their coach's voice.
In your variation - it's entirely different - you have the defense yelling something that an umpire would normally yell. I do not see the casebook as saying that.

[tcannizzo]

What you write makes some sense. . .
a.) the ruling is specific to the play specified in the case book
b.) my question would be a different play
c.) players certainly recognize their coaches voice

. . . but there are a number of variables that make this ruling retarded, especially from a JO perspective.

a.) players are instructed to react, not to think and analyze and turn to the coach and ask "Gee, was that you coach? I wasn't 100% sure."
b.) in the heat of the moment, confusion is much easier to create.
c.) I can think of numerous cases where the coach is the dad and the runner is the daughter and the runner would get confused if it came from another coach
d.) new coach
e.) new player
f.) player doesn't normally make it to 3B
g.) early in the season

It is a deliberate attempt at confusing and hindering a runner.
Often it is quite effective, although considered quite bush.
However, this ruling validates bush, rather than attempting to raise the bar for professionalism by the adult participants.

By putting the responsibility on youth players, ASA has given free license to unethical adults to mis-behave without penalty which many would consider condoning bush league antics.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dakota]

Lots of things are considered "bush" that are perfectly legal...

The umpire could always go with USC if he judged it to be that bad.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SergioJ

OK, just looked over the ASA 2009 Casebook and Play 1-57 is confusing to me. Here is what this scenario says:

OBSTRUCTION
PLAY 1-57
With no outs and R1 on 3B, B2 hits a fly ball to right field that is caught. Prior to the ball reaching F9, (a) F5 yells "go," or (b) the coach for the defense in the 3B dugout yells "go." In both cases, R1 leaves 3B too soon and the defense properly appeals.
RULING: R1 is not out. Although this is a distracting act, there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling. R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction. (1-OBSTRUCTION-B)

So, if R1 should know their coach's voice and instruction, and there is no penalty for a defensive player or a coach yelling, then why is R1 not out if defense properly appealed?

Serg

Check this thread...

[RKBUmp]

I dont necessarily agree with the statement that a player should know thier own coaches voice or instructions. Wearing a batting helmet completely changes how you hear, and any wind blowing across the ear holes makes it nearly impossible to hear anything with clarity. If we are going to consider verbal interference for a runner yelling mine or I got it on a fielder making a play on a pop up, why wouldnt the offense get the same consideration for a player yelling go before the catch?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I dont necessarily agree with the statement that a player should know thier own coaches voice or instructions. Wearing a batting helmet completely changes how you hear, and any wind blowing across the ear holes makes it nearly impossible to hear anything with clarity.

And when isn't an offensive player going to be hearing their base coach with a helmet on their head?

[RKBUmp]

Alternately, shouldnt a defensive player be able to recognize the voice of her teammate calling her off? Why would the offensive player be expected to recognize a voice and the defensive player not?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And when isn't an offensive player going to be hearing their base coach with a helmet on their head?

It has been scientifically proven that teenage girls go temporarily deaf when they are running. But that would make the ruling moot.

[SergioJ]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Check this thread...

Thanks Tom. Since we didn't see this casebook until this past weekend at our clinic (our UIC read some scenarios from the casebook), I had forgotten about it. And I only happened to see it for a brief moment, since our UIC was the only one with a copy. What happened to the days when you could get a casebook from ASA? Or did I miss something again?

Serg

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SergioJ

Thanks Tom. Since we didn't see this casebook until this past weekend at our clinic (our UIC read some scenarios from the casebook), I had forgotten about it. And I only happened to see it for a brief moment, since our UIC was the only one with a copy. What happened to the days when you could get a casebook from ASA? Or did I miss something again?

Serg

ASA Properties, Inc.

[NCASAUmp]

And will ASA sell the CD with the rules PDF?

[SRW]

Email from KR on this came out Tuesday to the NUS:

All,

There has been an error detected in the 2009 case book. The question is number 1 -57 and in the original version the word not was in front of out and should not have been. The case book is now titled rev 1 and the question is highlighted in yellow. The new rev is now at the national office and available. I am sending this you so you can forward this to those that attended the UIC clinic. I will put this on the web in next month clarifications. Any questions please let me know.



Kevin