Watching 10U - BR to 3rd!

[txtrooper]

The glove size is also specified in the rules. Page 169 of the safety awareness guide clearly says glove or mitt. The reason it is written as it is was to eliminate any confusion between the glove and mitt, which was previously illegal to wear. The safety guide says the ASA glove rule now allows any player to wear a glove or mitt at any position. The guide says the glove shall not exceed specifications within the rule, which indicates that the glove shall be worn. Am I getting anywhere with this or has this horse been beet to death on here before?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

The glove size is also specified in the rules. Page 169 of the safety awareness guide clearly says glove or mitt. The reason it is written as it is was to eliminate any confusion between the glove and mitt, which was previously illegal to wear. The safety guide says the ASA glove rule now allows any player to wear a glove or mitt at any position. The guide says the glove shall not exceed specifications within the rule, which indicates that the glove shall be worn. Am I getting anywhere with this or has this horse been beet to death on here before?

It has been beaten to death, but there is no indication the glove "SHALL" be worn anywhere within the ASA rules.

My posts have all been accurate. You can try to justify this all you want, but the rules simply do not support your stance. It seems you are attempting to force the allowance of a mitt or glove at any defensive position into a mandate that a glove be worn.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

If I see this violation, I am invoking 8.3.D. Legal order for the bases means legal order; it should not have to be spelled out for us or anyone else to understand. It is an elementary theory of order 1, 2 3…….etc.

I get that, but if 1-2-3-H is the "normal order", then H-3-2-1 would be "backward" She didn't run 1-2-3-H, obviously... but she also didn't run H-3-2-1 (or any part of it). Just because she's started at the batters box doesn't mean she's starting at home. Batters box to 3rd is NOT the same as running to third after having achieved home plate.

And also remember that running backward is NOT illegal (happens often on caught flies, run downs, etc). Running backward with the intent of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game is illegal. And I don't think that applies in the OP at all.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

ASA Rule 3, Sec 4 states: A glove/mitt may be worn by any player (within prescribed dimensions). It further states that the pitchers glove may be solid or multicolored as long as it is not the color of the ball.

I would argue that the foreword slash between glove/mitt means one or the other. This rule allows for the option of wearing a glove or mitt, not that the glove is optional.

I would agree with "/" meaning "or", but the sentence still doesn't mean what you say it does. Compare:

A glove or mitt may be worn by any player.

A glove or mitt must be worn by any player.

You seem to be interpreting "may" as "must".

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by celebur

I would agree with "/" meaning "or", but the sentence still doesn't mean what you say it does. Compare:

A glove or mitt may be worn by any player.

A glove or mitt must be worn by any player.

You seem to be interpreting "may" as "must".

So what would you do if a the catcher comes to the catchers box w/o a glove or the pitcher to the pitchers plate w/o a glove?

Review page 169 of your ASA Manuel. The Safety Awarness Guide. The top of the page says:

Basic Softball Equipment an Recomendations. Within the first paragraph of this section it states. The following provides a general outline of ASA's official rules concerning mandatory equipment to be used in ASA championship play. Glove is one of those pieces of equipment covered under this section. I would question any umpire who does not take the entire game and rule set into consideration, along with the ability to apply good old common sense.

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I get that, but if 1-2-3-H is the "normal order", then H-3-2-1 would be "backward" She didn't run 1-2-3-H, obviously... but she also didn't run H-3-2-1 (or any part of it). Just because she's started at the batters box doesn't mean she's starting at home. Batters box to 3rd is NOT the same as running to third after having achieved home plate.

And also remember that running backward is NOT illegal (happens often on caught flies, run downs, etc). Running backward with the intent of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game is illegal. And I don't think that applies in the OP at all.

"Any part of it", third is still a part of the bases. I realize that batter runner starts in the batters box, although running to third is reverse order. Suppose nothing is done and the runner advances to home, the run can not score because the player never touched 1st or 2nd (ASA 5.5). I believe that this situation would provoke an appeal, but if it did not , what would you rule on the play?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

"Any part of it", third is still a part of the bases. I realize that batter runner starts in the batters box, although running to third is reverse order. Suppose nothing is done and the runner advances to home, the run can not score because the player never touched 1st or 2nd (ASA 5.5). I believe that this situation would provoke an appeal, but if it did not , what would you rule on the play?

Considering there is no valid rule for me to call this runner out, I would (as you did) expect this situation to provoke an appeal. I rather like Atl's suggestions regarding "steering" the coach to an appeal if he's not quite there - and then informing him that a coach cannot make an appeal - it has to come from a player... hopefully that would do it.

But barring an appeal, as much as I'd WANT to, I find no rule allowing me to call this runner out - and I suppose that if the defense is too stupid to appeal this obviously appealable play, well, they deserve to be scored on.

[Skahtboi]

Anyone besides me get the feeling that this thread has become just slightly convoluted?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

So what would you do if a the catcher comes to the catchers box w/o a glove or the pitcher to the pitchers plate w/o a glove?

Review page 169 of your ASA Manuel. The Safety Awarness Guide. The top of the page says:

Basic Softball Equipment an Recomendations. Within the first paragraph of this section it states. The following provides a general outline of ASA's official rules concerning mandatory equipment to be used in ASA championship play. Glove is one of those pieces of equipment covered under this section. I would question any umpire who does not take the entire game and rule set into consideration, along with the ability to apply good old common sense.

This is completely irrelevant to the point that the literal wording of the rule does not require the wearing of a glove/mitt.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

OK, in agreement that ASA 8.3 does not tell us specifically what is the legal order of touching bases as does NCAA and FED, and would have been wrong in applying it to mb's sitch in the OP.

That being the case, what instance would we call a runner out (under 8.3.D) for running the bases in reverse order to either....(1) confuse the defense
or (2) make a travesty of the game?

So again, I'll ask the question, under what circumstances would/could a runner be called out under (8.3.D) for running the bases in reverse order?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

So again, I'll ask the question, under what circumstances would/could a runner be called out under (8.3.D) for running the bases in reverse order?

The rule was put into baseball's code after a player stole second, and then on the next pitch stole first, and then stole 2nd again later. There was no rule to call him out for that, but they decided it was a mockery of the game, and added the rule. I'm assuming softball inherited that rule from them.