On Deck Batter
 

Had this come up during high school ball, I was BU.

Runner on 2, single to right field. Runner attempts to score on the hit, throw from F9 is in dirt, deflects off catcher and makes contact with ODB, runner was well ahead of throw, no chance for an out. B/R is advancing to 2nd on throw to home from F9 and is within probably 15' of 2nd when ball contacts the ODB.

Live ball play on, or interference on the ODB, runner closest to home out?

I don't know if there's a difference, but just to be clear, is this NFHS or ASA? Some high school associations use ASA.

nfhs

Looks like no play available, if ball is by ODB and F2 chasing.

Ball is dead when contacting ODB.
If there was chance of an out, runner being played on is out.
It there was no chance for an out, no one is out.
Runner returns to 1st (last base at time ball becomes dead)

There is a difference between ASA and NFHS when it comes to ODB interference. In ASA the BR or the runner closest to home is out. In NFHS it is always the BR or Runner being played on. So in ASA the runner being played on maybe the runner between 2nd and 3rd, but the runner that is out could be the runner between 3rd and home, if they've not scored yet. In NFHS during the same play it would be the runner between 2nd and 3rd.

In both ASA and NFHS there has to be a play. I believe NFHS uses the word "obvious" when describing the potential for an out. Now if there is no play available, then you have a choice depending on how you interpret the ODB. Is he/she actively involved in the game? Neither NFHS or ASA makes it clear either way. If you say the ODB is actively in the game, then you must treat them the same as the base coaches. If you say they are not actively involved in the game (which is my opinion) then you have a blocked ball. Return all runners to the last base touched. Again, this is assuming no out was possbile in the umpires judgment.

I think NFHS is pretty clear....

"ART. 15 . . . The on-deck batter commits interference or offensive team equipment causes a blocked ball (and interference).

PENALTY: (Art. 15) The runner being played on is out. If no play is obvious, no player is out, but runners shall return to the last base touched at the time the ball is declared dead."

I don't agree
 

The words "and interference" in parenthesis is somewhat confusing to me. It's either interference and then we get an out or its a blocked ball and we put the runners back. You can't have a blocked ball and interference. The two are mutually exclusive. I guess you could say that interference by someone not in the game is a blocked ball but why confuse the matter. Just call it interference. The words "and interference" means that both a blocked ball and interference has to occur. That being said it is possible that we have a live ball play on in NFHS. If there was a blocked ball but no interference then what do we have? According to the rule above it has to be both blocked and interference.

The problem I have is how can you have interference if there is no play possible? What have you interfered with? Nothing. So, no I don't agree that it is clear.

In the rule proper, they state interference must be committed, hence a play must be being made.

Yet, the penalty seems to provide an enforcement for when there was no play (and hence no interference).

Perhaps what the penalty means by "not obvious" is that the runner who is being played on is not obvious... but if that is so, why is no runner out (as opposed to the closest to home being out)? If there was interference, somebody is out.

I agree... not clearly written.

Maybe I'm reading it too simple....
As I see it, if there is an obvious play, it is interference...
If there is no obvious play, it's a blocked ball (dead ball, runners return).
That's how I'm calling it.

That is probably what they meant (and how I would call it, too). But, its wording is a bit convoluted.

Why would a ball that unintentionally hit an on deck batter necessarily be considered a blocked ball?

A blocked ball is one that is touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game or which touches loose equipment......

Is an on deck batter not also a part of the active game? A space is provided for them in live ball territory, they are allowed to be in live ball territory during play and can act as an additional base coach directing a player between 3rd and home plate. A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not interference and is a live ball. Same would go for an errant throw or deflection that goes off an umpire.

No, the ODB is not part of the game. The rules only allow the ODB permission to leave their assigned area for certain purposes, they do not provide them with any protection or "rights" as it pertains to what occurs when they leave that area.

And another thing...
 

To add to what Mike said, the rule book has specific language regarding a base coach being hit by a thrown ball. It's a live ball if it was not deemed intentional, otherwise interference if there was a play to be made. There is no such language regarding the ODB, which leads me to believe that the ODB is not actively involved in the game. They can leave the On deck circle to direct a player coming home. In that instance I would say they are actively involved in the game. Also, when they leave the On deck circle to become a batter they are in the game. A part from those two situations, they are not.

Maybe it's time to ban the ODB and tell them to take their warmup swings in the dugout. Some games need a little excitement. :cool:

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.

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.

In addition to the information from AtlUmpSteve.

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