On Deck Batter

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.