On Deck Batter

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[Dakota]

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.

[RKBUmp]

As it appears that a ball contacting the ODB must be ruled either a blocked ball or interference, what is to stop the defense from using this to their advantage to kill a play and return runners to the last base touched or attempt to get a free out?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

As it appears that a ball contacting the ODB must be ruled either a blocked ball or interference, what is to stop the defense from using this to their advantage to kill a play and return runners to the last base touched or attempt to get a free out?

The umpires.

Use the same judgment and authority that allows you to refuse to rule obstruction when you judge a runner goes out of their normal running pattern to appear to be impeded, to refuse to award a base to a batter that appears to want to be hit by the pitch, and to declare a catcher aiming at a runner out of the running lane without making an attempt to make the play an unsportsmanlike act. Rule 10.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

As it appears that a ball contacting the ODB must be ruled either a blocked ball or interference, what is to stop the defense from using this to their advantage to kill a play and return runners to the last base touched or attempt to get a free out?

In addition to the information from AtlUmpSteve.

In most cases the defense would be taking quite a chance trying to force that blocked ball.