Offense opens the gate

[NCASAUmp]

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?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[celebur]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by celebur

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?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

^^^^^^
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.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

...from the time the fielder provided the impetus that propelled the ball out of play.

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

[Skahtboi]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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.

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.