Referee play

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Why isn't the case cited ("While ball is alive, F5, pitcher and catcher meet nearest pitcher's plate") a LBR violation, assuming the pitcher has the ball and not F5 or F2?

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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.

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.