Is there a hole in 8-7-J

[shagpal]

the "hole" in your OP references ASA, but a small phrase in the 2010 NHFS case book might help explain away the hole, and provide some closure. it reads on p.65, situation 8.8.16, "R1 (or any runner) is permitted to complete her base-running responsibilities before a dead-ball appeal can be made."

You can look at it this way, if BR doesn't reach 1B, she can still be out, say for abandonment. if she reaches 1B even after the ball is called dead, she is "permitted to complete her run" to 1B, making her safe at 1B, and is a runner thereafter. you can consider this an awarded base, as in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60). this is consistent w/ the 2010 NHFS rulebook 5-2a and 5-2c, as this is an award that still has to be completed legally like any other awarded base.

but this doesn't fix the ASA hole, since there is no similar language I can find in ASA materials.

Originally Posted by rwest

No, once you kill the play the BR does not instantly become a Runner. You have to then enforce the penalty. It is now at this point you enforce 8-7-J. Part of the penalty for interference is placing the BR on 1st base if they are not declared out. That is part of the entire penalty. You can't put them on first base as part of the first enforcement of the penalty then further enforce the penalty a second time and then declare the BR, now a runner, out. It is the BR status at the time of the interference that is important. There is no rule in section 1 that makes the BR a Runner instantaneously on the interference call. It is our enforcement of the penalty that causes them to be designated a runner when we put them on 1st. When we kill the play they are still a BR.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

...since there is no similar language i can find in ASA materials.

ASA 8-5-G EXCEPTION 1; RS 1-C-1,2, -D note.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

ASA 8-5-G EXCEPTION 1; RS 1-C-1,2, -D note.

We can't apply the appeal or awarded bases rules to this scenario. This is an immediate dead ball. The BR could miss 1st on her way to 2nd and the defense could not appeal her missing 1st. We've killed the play long before the runner missed 1st. It never happened.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

We can't apply the appeal or awarded bases rules to this scenario. This is an immediate dead ball. The BR could miss 1st on her way to 2nd and the defense could not appeal her missing 1st. We've killed the play long before the runner missed 1st. It never happened.

If you notice, I was only responding to shag's comment about an ASA reference similar to his Fed reference.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you notice, I was only responding to shag's comment about an ASA reference similar to his Fed reference.

Sorry about that!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by shagpal

the "hole" in your OP references ASA, but a small phrase in the 2010 NHFS case book might help explain away the hole, and provide some closure. it reads on p.65, situation 8.8.16, "R1 (or any runner) is permitted to complete her base-running responsibilities before a dead-ball appeal can be made."

You can look at it this way, if BR doesn't reach 1B, she can still be out, say for abandonment. if she reaches 1B even after the ball is called dead, she is "permitted to complete her run" to 1B, making her safe at 1B, and is a runner thereafter. you can consider this an awarded base, as in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60). this is consistent w/ the 2010 NHFS rulebook 5-2a and 5-2c, as this is an award that still has to be completed legally like any other awarded base.

but this doesn't fix the ASA hole, since there is no similar language I can find in ASA materials.

This is not a delayed dead ball nor is it an awarded base. On interference it is an immediate dead ball and nothing can happen after that. The only thing that makes the BR a Runner is our enforcement of the penalty for interference. Any time we call interference and we don't also call the BR out then we put them on 1st base.

I don't have my Fed rule books with me because in Georgia, we call in the Fall. My FED season has been over for several months.

[shagpal]

the batter-runner doesn't reach first base when dead-ball is called in your OP. I didn't find anything in asa materials that says the batter-runner is AWARDED first base on the immediate dead-ball on the INT call, but I did find it in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60).

I was looking for some supplement to close the rules "hole" posted in your OP. allowing "runners" to finish their running responsibilities could close that hole, which dakota (tom) did find in the asa rules supplement to the same effect.

Originally Posted by rwest

This is not a delayed dead ball nor is it an awarded base. On interference it is an immediate dead ball and nothing can happen after that. The only thing that makes the BR a Runner is our enforcement of the penalty for interference. Any time we call interference and we don't also call the BR out then we put them on 1st base.

I don't have my Fed rule books with me because in Georgia, we call in the Fall. My FED season has been over for several months.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by shagpal

the batter-runner doesn't reach first base when dead-ball is called in your OP. I didn't find anything in asa materials that says the batter-runner is AWARDED first base on the immediate dead-ball on the INT call, but I did find it in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60).

I was looking for some supplement to close the rules "hole" posted in your OP. allowing "runners" to finish their running responsibilities could close that hole, which dakota (tom) did find in the asa rules supplement to the same effect.

Underneath 8-7-L:

NOTE - Section 7J-L: When runners are called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base.

I do not view this as a loophole. The rule does not say that it has to be a double play on a runner, only that it's an attempt to break up a double play. Since the BR is awarded 1B as per the quoted note above, they are now a runner, and are subject to the prescribed penalty.

For the record, I haven't been paying 100% attention to this thread. I think we're looking for a loophole that just isn't there.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Underneath 8-7-L:


I do not view this as a loophole. The rule does not say that it has to be a double play on a runner, only that it's an attempt to break up a double play. Since the BR is awarded 1B as per the quoted note above, they are now a runner, and are subject to the prescribed penalty.

For the record, I haven't been paying 100% attention to this thread. I think we're looking for a loophole that just isn't there.

This is a stretch. If we take a rule that talks about something happening to a runner who has already scored you wouldn't apply that to a runner who was awarded home since he will be a runner who has already scored once he takes the award.
It's a much shorter path to the right answer to go Steve's way in my mind. The B-R is a special kind of runner and this rule just isn't precise in who it mentions because the situation where it would need to be is so obscure.

;-) Besides if you aren't going to call him out until he's a runner, you have to award the BR 1st, watch him walk down and then call him out when he gets there which is just asking for trouble ;-)
________
VAPORIZER WIKI

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

This is a stretch. If we take a rule that talks about something happening to a runner who has already scored you wouldn't apply that to a runner who was awarded home since he will be a runner who has already scored once he takes the award.
It's a much shorter path to the right answer to go Steve's way in my mind. The B-R is a special kind of runner and this rule just isn't precise in who it mentions because the situation where it would need to be is so obscure.

;-) Besides if you aren't going to call him out until he's a runner, you have to award the BR 1st, watch him walk down and then call him out when he gets there which is just asking for trouble ;-)

True... I posted this before reading Steve's explanation. Much better way of putting it.

They're still looking for something that isn't there.

[shagpal]

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Underneath 8-7-L:


I do not view this as a loophole. The rule does not say that it has to be a double play on a runner, only that it's an attempt to break up a double play. Since the BR is awarded 1B as per the quoted note above, they are now a runner, and are subject to the prescribed penalty.

For the record, I haven't been paying 100% attention to this thread. I think we're looking for a loophole that just isn't there.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by shagpal

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

Be careful with how far you go with using the "intent" of a rule. While I do agree with you that we should call the BR out in this sitch, there are times when some umpires stretch rules to match what they believe their intent is. ASA has gotten more and more strict with letter-of-the-law interpretations, as they can often be our only salvation.

When there's no room left for interpretation in the application of the rules, we, as umpires, stand on firmer ground.

[shagpal]

yes, I'm not thrilled about the use of "award", used by mike and used by NHFS as well (note the edit), but absent from asa rules as far as I could find.

(edit) ** actually, the "award" in the NHFS casebook 8.5.3 (p60) is awarding BR B1, but is not the trailing runner **

what I suggested was simply another way to look at the same thing we all do, declare the BR out on the turn of a INT double play broken-up. allowing the BR to finish her running responsibilities allows BR to reach 1B legally, NOT AWARDED, only then to be ruled out for a double play breakup as the trailing "runner". that way, we can get around the quandary of "double jeopardy". it's not the way I look at it, it's just something I offered to help close your hole. to be honest, I never knew there was a hole till you pointed it out.

what we (I) are explaining is not what we all do normally, but the flaw or lack of in the way the rule applied as written. but whatever rationale you prefer really doesn't matter, it's all handled the same way, at least that's mike's rationale anyways.

Originally Posted by rwest

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.