Play from Iraq

[IRISHMAFIA]

This is a play which BretMan and I have been discussing on another board. The issue is the time from which bases are awarded.

1 out, runner at 1st and 3rd. Batter hits slow roller down the line to 3rd, runner on 3rd holds for a few seconds then bolts for home, 3rd baseman bolts for ball but boots it off his glove, (into foul territory) ball then rolls into the feet/path of the runner going home. Runner going home trips/falls and ball then shouts/rolls "out of play". I was the ump for this game. I called runner going home safe, he was over 1/2 way home when it happened. By this time the runner on first was nearly to 3rd and the hitter was halfway to 2nd. I held them up at 3rd and 2nd. Did I make the right call?

BretMan and NCASA already know my position. Thoughts?

[SRW]

ASA Rules?

[tcannizzo]

I don't see any awarded bases - unless the ball was within a step and reach of F5 when R1 contacted the ball - in which case I would have INT on R1.

[argodad]

What a difference one vowel makes. The ball shouts, "out of play." I don't think thats a regulation ball. Can you have verbal interference on the ball?

[greymule]

If it's ASA, "step and reach" isn't part of the decision, and neither is the runner's utterance. Besides, this is a deflected ball, so unless F5 has a chance to make an out and the runner makes contact with him (or deliberately contacts the ball), there's no INT.

There's no awarding the runner home, either, half way or not. It's the runner's tough luck if he trips over a deflected ball.

I would have no call here.

If the play is from Iraq, however, ASA rules wouldn't apply. Most leagues in Iraq use YSISF rules (which also cover how to rule if the ball in fact does shout anything).

[BretMan]

I was thinking about posting this play here, but Irish beat me to it!

I also thought that if I did, the answers would be all over the board. So far, they seem to be. That was my thought for two reasons: This may be a play not specifically covered in the rule book, and; The description posted is kind of vague on a few points.

Without adding my two cents right away, I'll just add a couple of comments:

- Game was played under ASA rules by US military personnel.

- The umpire calling this play did not rule interference, so you can disregard that as part of your call.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Here's my thoughts:

Not interference; in NFHS, not step and and reach, in ASA, no intent nor suggestion that the umpire involved saw a possible "play".

Base awards that DON'T apply are for a thrown ball (never possessed, so cannot be thrown), intentionally carried or kicked out (no intent suggested), unintentionally carried out (never possessed, so cannot be carried). Having removed all other possibilities, and despite any apparent misdirection caused by the deflection and subsequent redirection by the runner, I conclude only one application applies; in ASA, 8.5-I.

We have a combination of sub (2) "deflects off the defensive player and goes out of play" and sub (4) "deflects off a runner .... and goes out of play"; but that doesn't change the basic award for a batted ball. Two bases from the time of the pitch. All else may seem to complicate the play, but nothing else applies.

NFHS rule is 8-4-3(h).

[IRISHMAFIA]

It is ASA and my ruling would be two bases from the time the defender last touched the ball based upon the July 2009 Rule Clarification that a fielder who kicks a ball and it leaves play based on that impetus (as opposed to that of a batted ball deflecting off a fielder and leaving play) being handled the same as if the fielder threw the ball.

Since F5 redirected the ball to the point of causing it to leave play that is the point from which my award will be.

For those who believe the runner has any bearing on this, citations please and, BTW, 8.5.I.4, 8.7.L is not in effect, but 8.8.F is

Now, 8.5.I.2 may be in contention, but you would have to ignore the aforementioned rules classification. I don't believe being a batted ball had anything to do with the ball entering DBT.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is ASA and my ruling would be two bases from the time the defender last touched the ball based upon the July 2009 Rule Clarification that a fielder who kicks a ball and it leaves play based on that impetus (as opposed to that of a batted ball deflecting off a fielder and leaving play) being handled the same as if the fielder threw the ball.

Since F5 redirected the ball to the point of causing it to leave play that is the point from which my award will be.

For those who believe the runner has any bearing on this, citations please and, BTW, 8.5.I.4, 8.7.L is not in effect, but 8.8.F is

Now, 8.5.I.2 may be in contention, but you would have to ignore the aforementioned rules classification. I don't believe being a batted ball had anything to do with the ball entering DBT.

The way I interpret the clarification you mention is that in that clarification, the fielder "kicked" the ball (apparently unintentionally), which is different from simply being deflected. The ball's momentum was provided by the fielder, not by the hit.

In this sitch, we're dealing with a deflected ball that was unintentionally pushed/kicked into DBT by the runner, not due to the fielder's actions. I'd be hard-pressed to give a potentially higher award to the runners as a result of something the runners themselves created, albeit unintentionally.

I vote 8-5-I-2 or 8-5-I-4, and the award should be made from the time of the pitch, not the deflection.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is ASA and my ruling would be two bases from the time the defender last touched the ball based upon the July 2009 Rule Clarification that a fielder who kicks a ball and it leaves play based on that impetus (as opposed to that of a batted ball deflecting off a fielder and leaving play) being handled the same as if the fielder threw the ball.

Since F5 redirected the ball to the point of causing it to leave play that is the point from which my award will be.

For those who believe the runner has any bearing on this, citations please and, BTW, 8.5.I.4, 8.7.L is not in effect, but 8.8.F is

Now, 8.5.I.2 may be in contention, but you would have to ignore the aforementioned rules classification. I don't believe being a batted ball had anything to do with the ball entering DBT.

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.5-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.5-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.
________
Harmed By Wellbutrin

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by youngump

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.

Yes, an award from either "time of pitch" or "time of throw/kick/deflection" might very well result in the same base.

Note that on this play it wasn't a "hard hit ball", it was a "slow roller". That at least opens up the possibility that a runner had advanced a base before the ball was touched. And that means an umpire may have to make a distinction between the two.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

And I'm having trouble believing that it's going to matter to your call which you choose. Even a stealing runner isn't going to get to second by the time a hard hit ball at F5 can be misplayed.

Probably not, but still possible. As such, we have to make sure we're consistent with our terminology and the application of the rules. Otherwise... We're just NSA.

[txtrooper]

After reading everything here, I am leaning toward 8.5.I.4.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Understand that application, but as I read the play (HTBT), it doesn't read that the fielder provided a new impetus. The act of "booting" the ball, to me, is not a new impetus, it simply redirects the batted ball, making it a deflected ball, 8.45-I(4). It reads to me that if there was a new impetus at all, it was the runner inadvertantly tripping and kicking the ball. The only rule applying to that is 8.5-I(4), and that rule also awards bases at the time of the pitch.

8.5.I.4 also states that the ball pass an infielder excluding the pitcher. That did not happen here.

HTBT, or an issue of understanding what the writer meant and judged to have happen. There are actually two differing definitions of "booting", so we don't know what the writer actually meant. It can mean actually "kicking", but in sports slang (both football and baseball), it is a synonym to "muffing", or simply failing make the play!! If F5 did add a new impetus, not simply redirect the existing force, then I can agree with you, Mike. But simply changing the direction (where booting is muffing) is deflecting, not a new impetus, and then I would still believe that 8.5-I(2) is the definitive citation, and that 8.5-I(4) and 8.8-F are subsequent and incidental action, and only supportive of clarifying that the runner is not out.

We could both be right based on the original post, and HTBT.

No argument about HTBT, but taking the info provided ("slow roller" being "booted off the glove" and then rolls toward the runner) certainly doesn't sound like it was the batter provided the impetus.