This is the best idea I have heard in a while. There should also be a rule that they need to take the warmup swings next to the loudest whiner or cheer leader. Whichever annoys the PU the most.:eek:

Why not? In SP, that's the last place you find the players, so there should be plenty of room.;)

I agree, but the OP never said where the ODB is at. Is the ODB by the plate or in the ODB circle? That would be my question before answering the question posed by the OP.

Agreed, but
 

If the ODB is out of the circle directing the runner home, he had better be behind the catcher and any other defensive player covering on the play when and if he gets hit by the ball.

Really don't care. Speaking ASA, I believe 7.1.D is real clear.

Yes, however....
 

ASA allows them to come out of the circle to direct a runner coming from third. At this point it is my interpretation that ASA deems them involved in the game and I'll give them some latitude, but they had better be behind the play so as not to interfere with the throw. ASA needs some clarification on this because I don't believe it is as clear as you deem it. I'd like a case play on this.

The ODB was still in the on deck circle when the ball was deflected into her.

At no point does ASA state, note or insinuate that the ODB is a game participant.

The definition of a blocked ball refers to a person "not engaged in the game".

You can attempt ot justify the ODB's existence on the field, but you have absolutely nothing to support your "interpretation".

Not true
 

No where in the rulebook does ASA define who is engaged in the game. It is your interpretation that the ODB is not involved in the game. You have absolutely nothing to support your interpretation. I happen to agree with you to a point, however, that's because we interpret it similarly, up to a point that is.

We all read the rule book and will come away with a different interpretation at times. This is because the rule book is sometimes less than 100% clear. I'm not faulting ASA. They do a good job, but they aren't perfect. No one is. Any document dealing with rules (i.e the Constitution, the Bible, ASA rule book) is opened to interpretation. Many things are crystal clear. Whether the ODB is invovled in the game is not one of them.

If there is some rule in the rule book that clearly says the ODB is not in the game, then I'll change by opinion. Until then, my interpretation has as much support as yours. Also, I'll take a written interpretation from the NUS. It doesn't just have to come from the book. As long as it is official.

Unfortunately, I think that you can make a case for both arguments: calling a blocked ball or letting it play out. ASA does not make it clear who is "engaged in the game" and who is not. In that sense, rwest is correct in that, as it is written, the reader should simply understand who is and isn't engaged. It's much like a force out - everyone seems to understand what it is, but good luck in correctly putting it down on paper.

I've already offered my two cents on this in a previous thread here.

Since this question was about NFHS rules, I'll simply stop there.

I can't offer you a written interpretation from the NUS; I can tell you I have had this conversation with members of the NUS, and Mike's interpretation is what they have told me.

In a nutshell, the ODB is not engaged in the game; players, umpires, and the two base coaches are only people that meet that definition. The ODB is allowed to stand in the on deck circle, as long as they do not interfere or block a live ball. They are allowed to leave the on deck circle to help direct a runner, as long as they do not interfere or block a live ball; that doesn't grant them any different status than ODB. They are permitted to have a maximum of two bats, but if they discard that equipment, it is at risk of interference or a blocked ball. They are not required to even enter the field of play (they may wait in the team area), and have no actual standing in the game; the ball contacting them or their bats results in a blocked ball in every case, and interference in addition, if there is a possible play.

Let's also keep in mind that there is a chain of command relative to rules interpretations in ASA; while I'm not saying Mike is always completely right, I am telling you he is higher on that food chain than anyone else here (including the guy writing this that is a voting member of the ASA Playing Rules Committee). Take his word as the word of authority the same as YOUR state UIC, until and unless 1) it clearly contradicts the written rule, or 2) there is a contrary ruling from a higher source on that chain.

There's nothing wrong with the academic discussions held; and when Mike isn't sure, he says so, or checks higher up (which has resulted in written interpretations, 99% reaffirming the answers he has given). Our discussions have also lead him (or me) to change our thoughts on a topic. But, saying his is just an interpretation opinion no better than yours is wrong, inappropriate, and disrespectful of his well-earned position, in my personal opinion.

No Disrespect intended
 

First of all no disrespect was intended to Mike. If Mike would have said what you've posted I would have believed him and that would have been the end of the debate. I don't believe Mike would lie to me and I realize that he is privy to information that I am not. However, if my post was disrespectful then you have to agree that Mike's was as well. I used the exact same language. He said I had no rule support for my position. When I state the same in regards to his position, I'm accused of being disrespectful but Mike is not. That's not a fair assessment.

I know I have not called as long as either you or Mike, however, I've worked hard at my officiating career and believe I should be shown some respect too. Of course Mike doesn't know that, but I think you should Steve seeing as I've been to a number of camps where you have been a facilitator.

Mike, I meant no disrepect. I was just debating a point. Had you mentioned conversations with the NUS, I would have taken that as the truth.

I apologize for any disrepect that may have come through from my post.

Sincerely,
Randall

Thank you, but not really necessary. I like a good discussion as well as anyone, probably more so. And, as most on here know, I will push back a little harder than some.

BTW, I still think you are reading more into it. :p;):D

more into what?
 

Your comments? The rule? I've given up my interp. Now its either a blocked ball or interference no matter where the ODB is!

RS 16 on Dugout Conduct comes pretty darned close. You do have to read a little between the lines to get that the ODB is not one of the "players involved in the game" but rather a player allowed to be outside of the dugout by rule.