Offense opens the gate
 

I forget if I posted this question already.

ASA ruleset, though other rulesets welcome.

The field is completely enclosed with chain link fencing, and the dugouts have gates with to keep them closed. Teams are (frequently) reminded to keep the gates closed.

So let's say runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. B3 hits a grounder to F6, who throws the ball towards F5. F5 wasn't expecting the throw, and the ball skips past him just as the next on-deck batter (who would be B5) opens the gate to go towards the on-deck circle. The ball ricochets off the opened gate and goes into the dugout.

Your call?

Treat it just the same as any other thrown ball that goes out of play.

Unless you are positive the ODB opened the gate specifically to let the ball out, you've gotta simply go by the rules and award bases.

Honestly, I think you'd have a tough sell convincing someone that you WERE positive the ODB opened it on purpose, if you tried to not award bases because of it. But I could see it being sold.

I'm going to be contrary and put the runners back to the bases they had at the time the ball went OOB (or hit the gate before going OOB).

The player that opened the gate is not yet the ODB and had no business opening the gate or being on the field while the ball was live. I am hesitant to reward this act by awarding bases to the runners, so I lean towards no award. . .

. . .but I do stand to be corrected. I fully recognize that this may be one of those situations where my 'gut' reaction is simply not supported by rule.

Fair enough. I can understand the desire not to reward stupidity... but I don't think it matters who opened the gate, even if it was the Team Mom or an asst coach. Without intent, I can see no rules justifying treating this any differently than a simple ball out of play.

Would you award extra bases if it was the DEFENSE unintentionally opening the gate, deflecting the ball in such a way that it stopped the runner's progress?

There are plenty of cases in which the rule book advances runners based off the intentional actions of a fielder. Intentional catch and carry and an overthrown ball are two such examples of advancing the runners at the last possible moment, the first award being given from the time the fielder entered DBT and the second award being given from the time the fielder provided the impetus that propelled the ball out of play.

Let me start with this: The OP, and the "plenty of cases" mentioned above are VERY different, and one might even go so far as to argue the existence of these plenty of cases and their penalties/awards implies that if it's NOT in the listed penalties, there's no penalty.

But that aside, you're talking apples to coffee. The examples you mention are ALL intentional. The OP, at least by the way it reads, is an UNintentional act.

I did mention that I could understand not awarding bases if I was positive the gate was opened to allow the ball to go out ON PURPOSE. Might have to resort to the God rule if we did that, but I can see doing that.

Actually, in the case of an overthrow, intent is not required.

Related to this, we also have rules regarding how we handle a blocked ball due to loose offensive or defensive equipment that shouldn't be there.

I'm a little surprised by some of these responses.

First, the recent and repetitive rule changes to eliminate intent as a factor, and to rule on the action itself; yet several here are basing their response on a perceived lack of intent.

Second, the most comparable rule relating to an inappropriate action by an offensive player would certainly be a blocked ball by offensive equipment; again, intent is disregarded, has no bearing on the outcome, the only decision is interference (runner closest to home is out, all other runners return to last base touched), or simply a blocked ball/dead ball, and all runners return to last base touched.

You simply cannot allow the offense to benefit from an illegal and/or inappropriate act that denies the defense a fair opportunity to make a play. Any other consideration is missing the boat.

Okay... so what would you do, and what rule do you pull out of the book on appeal?

^^^^^^
This is my thought as well, but I'm hard-pressed to define the gate as "offensive equipment." The gate, in my opinion, belongs to the field, even though the particular is under the control of the offense.

I wholeheartedly agree that the offense should not be allowed to benefit from unfairly and illegally creating a dead ball situation. The reason I mentioned it deflecting off the gate first is because I view this to be a thrown ball that is "touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game," which is the crux of the definition of a blocked ball.

Where it starts to become grey is when the correct on-deck batter (in this sitch, B4) commits such an act, since they are allowed to be out on the field. However, I think the above definition of a blocked ball still applies, as they are not officially engaged in the game, and their actions, indirect as they may be, still exert influence upon the ball's path.

Where it becomes even more grey is if it doesn't touch the gate at all. There's no real "handling," but I still think the blocked ball rules apply.

Thoughts?

Yeah. Most of us just call that the time of the throw. ;)

The gate is part of the field. What if it wasn't working properly, and was left open to allow field access. Do we punish the offense for that? No. No more than we do on dugouts where there are no gates at all.

To me, it appears that we are punishing the offense for the design of the field, rather than a normal act of the game.

I just wanted to use a more encompassing terminology, as evidenced by our previous debate regarding the play in Iraq. :)

This isn't a design issue. The design of the gate is to keep the ball in play and protect the participants by deflecting the ball away from the dugout. Opening the gate defeats the purpose of such a designed field.

obviouslyl the offense changed the playing field and its structures. start there and see where that leads you.

there is a rule about that i believe.

until ump calls time or a dead ball, gate stays closed. opening of the gate is changing the playing field. rule appropriately. read ALT ump.

I hear you... but I see no rule even remotely related to opening a fence to let it go out of play. Blocked? Equipment? This is an overthrow that rolled into DBT... how do we put the blocked ball rules into this scenario? If I do not allow the offense to benefit from the OP, what rule do I use to support my case when it's protested?

Gets me no where. I'm relatively positive there is nothing in any rulebook addressing a team changing the structures around a playing field. About the closest to this would be intentionally erasing a line - but there's no way that applies here.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you may be going by a ruleset other than ASA.

Does the definition of a blocked ball that I provided earlier not already handle this?

Don't get me wrong ... I completely understand the DESIRE to not let offense benefit from what happened here. And I agree with "unfairly" in this sentence quoted. But "illegally"? By what rule?

Even if I want to, I can't see how. The fence, while touched or moved by the offense, is under no definition "equipment".

So this is not a ball that is "touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game?"

No ... it's a ball touched by a gate.

...that was under the control of an offensive player.

This is where I am stuck.

Honestly, I believe that the solution, whatever it may be MUST also cover the case where the player opens the gate and the ball simply rolls out. There cannot be one ruling for cases where it hits this mistakenly opened gate and rolls out, and another different ruling for where it simply rolls out the open gate.

I see where you're trying very hard to go with this, and I respect that. But to me it doesn't fit, and further it doesn't solve the other situation.

And I agree with you to a point, Mike. I do. To be honest, I don't think that anything "neatly fits" this scenario. To me, this is not a simple case of "oops, it just went into DBT." The actions of the offense, intentionally or not, caused the ball to exit the field of play when it would not have otherwise done so.

For once (and probably the last time, :rolleyes:) I'm going to agree with mbcrowder. I don't see this as anything but a ball being thrown out of play. Let's not forget that if the defense had done their job, the ball would not be close to going out of play.

I umpired a game on a field that was totally enclosed, with the gates at the teams' dugouts, nearly in line with 1st and 3rd bases. The gate on the 1st base side did not have a working latch. All you had to do was push on it to get it to swing outward. It just so happened that a pop-up to F3 near the fence ended up directly adjacent to the gate. She caught the ball, leaned on the gate, and the gate swung out causing her to enter deadball territory. Weird? Yes. Was this anything but a catch and carry? No. Would the situation have changed if the gate were functional and the opposing team did not latch it correctly? Nope. Similar instance in the OP.

Aw now! ;)

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the National Umpire Staff had to forsight to cover a lot of little things that no one ever thought would happen.

In more recent years, (I assume) it was a given that applying common sense to the rules made these little nuances of the rule book and manual obsolete and removed them. One of these little snippets buried amongst instructions to the umpires was to never enforce a rule if the result benefitted the offender's team.

I have actually seen this occur at a Men's Major Church NC where there was a loose ball and an individual standing at a gate at the end of the dugout behind 1B separated his feet and lifted the top of the gate. The ball went under and the BR was awarded 2B. The dugout was that of the batting team, but other than the other team whining about it, the three-man crew had no evidence it was intentional. We considered it one of the nuances of the field. Many fields have them an you just deal with it.

If I did not play a game every time there was a gap in the fence, an unsecure gate, hole in the backstop, I wouldn't work that many games.

That said, it should be noted in the OP that the ball did not go through the open game, but simple hit it and entered the dugout. The OP doesn't state whether the ball actually entered the opening created by the gate opening or entered the dugout via another means. Let's assume it passed through the subject gate.

There is a can of worms to be opened here. Where do you draw the line? What if a player is turned away and bouncing on the fence while conversing with someone and his "bounce" moved the bottom of the fence enough that a live ball squeeked through? Yeah, TWP, but it could happen since I've seen it happen. Where to you draw the line as to where you may award or not award bases? If you determine the player acted with intention, do you toss the player for UC?

Using 10.1 in this case, I would take the offense's intent (to some extent) and the defense's ability to readily make a play on the ball redirected out of play.