ASA Rule Changes

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I recently worked a coupkle of ASA events and wore a non-black mask - the only person I hears anything from about it being non-approved was from a "spectator".

If you had a UIC worth anything at one of those events, he should have said something.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If you had a UIC worth anything at one of those events, he should have said something.

He provided food & drink - dunno that it mattered what was said.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Steve M

He provided food & drink - dunno that it mattered what was said.

Well, then some may say that UIC is worth his weight in gold.

[greymule]

1. If INT occurs before the BR reaches 1B, all runners not out return TOP unless forced.

2. Runner who has crossed the plate at the time of intentional INT to break up a double play on a fly ball should be considered the runner closest to home.

Originally Posted by greymule

2. Runner who has crossed the plate at the time of intentional INT to break up a double play on a fly ball should be considered the runner closest to home.

Maybe it would be more simple to base the runner closest to home on where they were at TOP? Of course, that wouldn't help on the sitch you have in mind.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by greymule

1. If INT occurs before the BR reaches 1B, all runners not out return TOP unless forced.

2. Runner who has crossed the plate at the time of intentional INT to break up a double play on a fly ball should be considered the runner closest to home.

1. That is the result of this play 99.999% of the time anyway. In that .001% where a runner has reached the next base before the interference, then the interference obviously had no effect on that runner's advance. Why penalize a runner that otherwise legally aquired a base?

2. Kind of the same answer...if the runner had already crossed the plate before the interference, then the interference had no bearing on the run scoring.

These two would give the offense a "double whammy", when "one whammy" should be enough!

[greymule]

These two would give the offense a "double whammy", when "one whammy" should be enough!

NCAA softball uses the first rule. It can prevent some problems. (This is why all baseball codes use that rule.)

Note that in the second case I mentioned fly ball. A runner who crosses the plate before INT on a fly ball should not be allowed to score.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by greymule

Note that in the second case I mentioned fly ball. A runner who crosses the plate before INT on a fly ball should not be allowed to score.

Please provide a situation where a runner can score on INT on a fly ball.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Please provide a situation where a runner can score on INT on a fly ball.

Bases loaded, 0 or 1 out. Batter hits a high popup to F3. Runner from 3B breaks on contact. Once this runner passes HP, BR slaps at the ball before F3 catches it, and the ball falls to the ground. Run scores. BR out on IF, runner who started on 2B is declared out [now closest to home].

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Please provide a situation where a runner can score on INT on a fly ball.

With 1 out, R1 is on 3rd and R2 is on 1st. B4 hits a high fly ball over fair territory, which F4 is under, ready to catch. R1 ran on contact, not realizing it was a fly ball, and crosses home plate while the ball is in flight. R2 realizes that F4 will turn an easy double play if the ball is caught, and interferes with the catch, so that F4 is unable to catch the ball.

Since the inteference rule returns runners to bases at the time of interference, R1 would score on this play, having crossed the plate prior to the act of interference. The ball was not caught, so there is no available appeal.