That is where we are going with this. In NCAA it would be a LBR violation. However, ASA and Referee Magazine, apparently, have chosen to take the route of awarding the dumb team by returning them to the base.

While this is not a "Marquis of Queensbury" play, per se, the onus of knowing the situation should not be ignored. However, that seems to be the path ASA has chosen.

I am still not hearing much on how folks would rule in NFHS.

FP only. R1 on 3B leads off after a pitch to B2. The pitcher, after receiving throw back from catcher, legally plays back R1 to 3B. While ball is alive, F5, pitcher and catcher meet nearest pitcher's plate to consult. R1, seeing home plate unprotected, leaves 3B and crosses home plate, scoring.

RULING: Time out should be called by the umpire. Place R1 back on 3B. (10-1J[2])

Apparently, it was or it wouldn't be there. Someone had to ask the question for them to include it.

Doesn't need to. There rule referenced specifically addresses when all umpires have the authority to suspend play.

That's part of the point, the play is showing that the LBR is not applicable.

Because it was included to reference Rule 10, not Rule 8 and, as previously stated, the LBR doesn't apply.

The pitcher, after receiving throw back from catcher

And I'd like to point out to Steve (and anyone else who would get it), the wording is "old regime" since apparently the ball in the case play is living and breathing. ;)

I first heard an interpretation on this play at an ASA National in 1996. We were told by the UIC that there were two "plays" currently making the rounds in California that ASA staff wanted us to be aware of, and nip in the bud. Amazing that we saw both plays several times, as this was 12A, the youngest age at that time.

First was the batter squaring to bunt while a runner was stealing, and the batter drawing the bat back to interfere with the catcher. We were directed to rule interference if contact was made and 1) the batter moved back in the box after squaring, or 2) the batter looked back while drawing the bat back, or 3) of the batter drew the bat back in a greater arc than the original squaring action. After several interference calls, that play stopped happening.

The second was this play; the catcher (and others) meeting in the circle with a live ball, to draw the runners off a base. We were directed to call time whenever that happened, to prevent any LBR play from developing; and to sweep the plate to justify the time. We were reminded that umpires could call time with the ball in the circle and all play ended; and that it was wanted for us to do that, as "they" considered the trick to be deceitful and not sporting. So, as preventative officiating, to call "time" any time play had ended, and the catcher went out to the circle.

That (deceit or unsporting) was never written into the rule; we were simply directed to call "time". IMO, that is the basis for the case play ruling, no matter how described.

I am equally confident that Mary Struckhoff issued an identical approved ruling for NFHS years later; and I really recall her describing the play as unsportsmanlike, and that a warning would be appropriate, in addition to killing the play if it developed.

Live vs. dead............
 

It's been years since I've done FP, but I do remember that one "unwritten edict" is KEEP THE BALL LIVE. Now, I'm strictly an ASA SP umpire. The pitched ball is dead as soon as it hits the ground. So, in the future, I won't respond to any FP, FED, MOD or other-based posts. Sorry if I confused anyone.

First off, noting ASA anything in red is just plain wrong. USSSA, ASA SP

As to the rest of your point, let me ponder. What to follow? Stevetheump's memory of the one "unwritten edict", or the direction of the member of the ASA National Umpire Staff that is UIC of this National Championship Final?? One highly regarded, in fact, a long time member, DE from Kansas?

Hmmmmmmmmmm??? What to do?

Let me interrupt this discussion/argument (12th verse) of FP being a live ball game as compared with SP for a moment to suggest that maybe Mike was poking fun at the choice of words in the quoted case play.

While ball is alive vs "while the ball is live".

If he wasn't poking fun at that, well, he should have! :)

I just typed what was there; I just rechecked to confirm it wasn't my add.

Mike, I used "prior regime" versus "old regime" because some of us (you included, of course) umpired in the days that Tom Mason was National Director of Umpires. Now, that was the "old" regime; at least to me.

Didn't say you did, Bubba ;):D

Actually, I was talking to Tom this past Saturday. He will be speaking at the NFHS and ASA state clinic promoting the state's Sports Hall of Fame. Tom and Doris still plugging away and try to make as many events as they can.

Aside from our godfather, I was referring to anything prior to KR who went on a rant at a regional clinic a few years ago about the use of the work "alive". :rolleyes:

Blue vs. red............
 

First, I offended some with my bold type. So, I stopped that.
Now, it appears I offend when I put ASA in red instead of blue.
What if I just kept it in black?:confused:

I think he's just making a joke about the red shirts USSSA umpires wear. ;)

Now, now, enough of that. :(
Besides, we wear white on Sundays. :rolleyes:

And yes, my main sanctions are NFHS and ASA, but some very good work at the others as well. :cool: