Ejected but not called out?

[Tap]

ASA slow pitch. I've looked through the ASA rule book and cannot find this explicitly, but I want to make sure I am right about this, as I'm not 100% sure. When a batter-runner does something that warrants an ejection but that does not qualify as interference, the B-R is not necessarily called out. I think many umpires call B-R out in situations where they should not. Two examples come to mind: (1) throwing one's bat into the catcher or umpire after being warned, and (2) where a fielder is obstructing a base (whether it be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or home), and the ball is nowhere near the fielder, the B-R contacts the fielder in a flagrant, unnecessarily violent manner (i.e. in a manner that would have gotten the runner called out and ejected if the fielder was waiting with the ball).

In (1), it is my understanding that the B-R could be ejected, but would not be called out if he reached base safely and the bat did not interfere with the play (unless there was no sub available). In (2), it is my understanding that the runner would not be called out if he reached base safely [1st, 2nd, or 3rd that is] unless there was no sub available (and if it was a play at home, the B-R would be safe, but would be ejected).

Am I correct or off bases here?

[oppool]

That the player is not called out in the situation as you have described in plays where no interference occurred. BUT if there is no subs available and the player is ejected you still dont have an out but you have a FORFEIT a team can not play short-handed when a player has been ejected

Check out POE#48 for throwing a bat and 4-1-d(2) for playing short-handed

Don

[Edited by oppool on Sep 1st, 2002 at 11:41 AM]

[greymule]

In ASA, a runner could hit a ball off the fence, slug F3 in the jaw on his way around first, and then make it safely to 2B. Ejected but not out. Same with OBR, I guess, though I wonder: if F3 slugs him back, is that obstruction?

I'm trying to forget Fed rules, but I believe they call for both an out and an ejection in such a case. Fed has "malicious contact," but ASA does not.

[Tap]

Thanks for the replies.

Oppool, that's correct about the forfeit under ASA rules. I know Mike R. and others hate modifications to ASA rules (justifiably so in most cases), but most leagues where I call games are rec leagues where a forfeit is not called if a team has to play shorthanded due to an ejection (it would be an automatic out when that spot in the order comes up -- and starting with 9 players would not even be an automatic out, just a big disadvantage defensively).

[Steve M]

As I see it, the rec leagues are where you really need the forfeit. The local players are much less disciplined for league play than they are when playing in a game that actually means something. Less discipline = more antics from Ed's AA's. I hate it when I get roped into a slow pitch invitational or "open" tournament on those weekends when Ed turns them loose - they sometimes show up here in Pa.

The less discipline and more antics means that I must have more severe penalties to impose in order to maintain control.

Steve M

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Tap
Thanks for the replies.

Oppool, that's correct about the forfeit under ASA rules. I know Mike R. and others hate modifications to ASA rules (justifiably so in most cases), but most leagues where I call games are rec leagues where a forfeit is not called if a team has to play shorthanded due to an ejection (it would be an automatic out when that spot in the order comes up -- and starting with 9 players would not even be an automatic out, just a big disadvantage defensively).

How right you are! A dozen years ago, there was no such thing as playing shorthanded. As responsible adults, you were expected to field a complete team or lose to the team that could.

Rant on!

The original concept of the shorthanded rule was to not penalize other players on the field for the shortcomings of another individual. This allowed the games to continue and I have no problem with that. However, at the local levels, this has become just another part of Americana where alleged adults are not held to a standard of being responsible for themselves or team.

In my opinion, they have taken this participation rule too far and allowing people to be lazy and non-commital to their fellow ballplayers.

By allowing games to continue shorthanded by ejection has underminded the authority of the umpire and circumvents the manager/coach's responsibilities as noted in ASA's 4.8.A

It is a shame that such things develop out of fear, but at some point, you have to stand up and allow repercussions of an act take place regardless of the outcome.

Rant off.

JMHO,