Here another

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Glad to know these things and will enforce the rule. But I can sense that many worms were just released from a can.

Do we treat this like interference with a batted ball (i.e., interferer out and everybody goes back to base held TOP) or like interference with a fielder in the act of throwing a ball (interferer out and runner go back to last base touched at time of INT?

Example: Abel on 3B, Baker hits one off the fence. Abel scores. Baker flagrantly crashes catcher and is ejected for USC. Do we send Abel back to 3B? Or do these rulings apply only to USC for thrown equipment?

[Edited by greymule on Feb 24th, 2003 at 04:18 PM]

Still a work in progress. A lot of good questions came out of a clinic last evening and I will attempt to get all the answers.

[Dakota]

I'm sorry, but what universe are those guys living in? There is NO privision in the ASA rule book for calling any player out for unsportsmanlike conduct. There is NO provision in the ASA rule book for disallowing a run from scoring for USC. There is NO provision in the ASA rule book for calling a dead ball due to USC. Inteference, yes to all of those. USC, NO.

Declaring a player out and putting a runner who has crossed home back on base are potentially game-deciding calls.

Back-dooring such a major (IMO it is major) change in the rules via a Rule 10-9 Case Play is extremely bad practice.

Perhaps ASA can get this ruling enforced without a lot of brouhaha in Championship Play, but what about the routine league games? What about all the ordinary invitational tournaments where the UIC is some local GOV umpire?

Until I get something in writing officially from ASA with the exact wording change of the rule that allows me to call the ball dead, declare a player out, and take a run back off the books due to slinging a bat, I ain't callin' it. No way. No how. And a Case Play by itself doesn't count.

[IRISHMAFIA]

ASA

10-8.A. Umpires may suspend play when, in their judgment, condition justify such action.

10-1.J The plate umpire and base umpire will have equal authority to:

3. Eject or disqualify a player, coach, manager or
other team member from the game for violation of
rule or flagrant misconduct.

10-1.K The umpire will declare the batter or runner out, without waiting for an appeal for such decision, in all cases where such player is retired in accordance with these rules.

These are the rules cited. These permit the dead ball ruling, the ejection, but the shortcoming is making the connection with the first two and the third allowing the out.

Since I have been instructed by my RUIC to make the call in this manner, I will instruct umpires in my state to do the same and rule similarly upon the receipt of any protest. If you want something on paper, simply refer to the test and CB play 10.8-1.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
ASA

10-8.A. Umpires may suspend play when, in their judgment, condition justify such action.

Absolutely, but unless the thrown bat injured someone or interferred with the play, it is unlikely my judgment would have justified such action.

10-1.J The plate umpire and base umpire will have equal authority to:

3. Eject or disqualify a player, coach, manager or
other team member from the game for violation of
rule or flagrant misconduct.

Agreed. Ejection is justified for throwing a bat in anger. I wasn't disputing that.

10-1.K The umpire will declare the batter or runner out, without waiting for an appeal for such decision, in all cases where such player is retired in accordance with these rules.

These are the rules cited. These permit the dead ball ruling, the ejection, but the shortcoming is making the connection with the first two and the third allowing the out.

Citing 10-1.K ("L" typo in the 2002 book) for the case play we are discussing is a force fit of the first order. In fact, I'll be stronger in my words: it is fiction. All this rule says is the umpire is to declare retired players out unless an appeal is necessary. "Retired" and "ejected" are not the same thing.

Since I have been instructed by my RUIC to make the call in this manner, I will instruct umpires in my state to do the same and rule similarly upon the receipt of any protest. If you want something on paper, simply refer to the test and CB play 10.8-1.

Fine, but that does not alleviate all the issues. This is not the way to get a well thought through rule change on the books. This seems little different from the various half-baked local rules we have to deal with from time to time. With only a single case play on a guidelines section of the rules, there are way too many holes in this for it to be applied with any consistency. Are all USCs dead balls? If so, what base to runners return to, TOP or TODB? Are all USCs outs? What about defensive USC? Is that a dead ball, too?

Was this even proposed to the rules committee?

Is there some perceived emergency they are responding to? Without that, like I said, back-dooring a rule change through case plays is a very bad idea. I expect more of ASA than this.

[Dakota]

BTW, Mike, I'm not ragging on you. I appreciate you bringing us this information.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Absolutely, but unless the thrown bat injured someone or interferred with the play, it is unlikely my judgment would have justified such action.

Agreed. Ejection is justified for throwing a bat in anger. I wasn't disputing that.

Citing 10-1.K ("L" typo in the 2002 book) for the case play we are discussing is a force fit of the first order. In fact, I'll be stronger in my words: it is fiction. All this rule says is the umpire is to declare retired players out unless an appeal is necessary. "Retired" and "ejected" are not the same thing.

Fine, but that does not alleviate all the issues. This is not the way to get a well thought through rule change on the books. This seems little different from the various half-baked local rules we have to deal with from time to time. With only a single case play on a guidelines section of the rules, there are way too many holes in this for it to be applied with any consistency. Are all USCs dead balls? If so, what base to runners return to, TOP or TODB? Are all USCs outs? What about defensive USC? Is that a dead ball, too?

Was this even proposed to the rules committee?

Is there some perceived emergency they are responding to? Without that, like I said, back-dooring a rule change through case plays is a very bad idea. I expect more of ASA than this.

Yes, a proposal was made, but having not been in Reno, I'm not really sure what happened to it. However, rules are not passed by a "rules committee" in ASA. The "committee" reviews proposed changes then offers it's recommendations to the full body at the National Convention. There are numerous reasons why some changes are approved and some not. This "interpretation" came about because it was realized that a player or team could literally start a brawl at the end of the game with an USC act and it not effect the outcome of the game. It isn't as if the umpires want to determine the outcome of a game, but there should be some sort of deterent to keep that from happening. I was first made aware of this train of thought last August at the Interservice and expected something to happen.

As I stated earlier, I'm still trying to digest some of this. To offer an answer to the question to which I do have one, yes this applies to all USC calls. Since part of the rule is to deny a team from scoring a run in such a circumstance, I believe it is probably TOP and a BR who was not the player ejected will probably be placed on 1B and only those forced will move up.

[greymule]

Preventing a brawl and punishing bat-throwers probably was the impetus. But should the umpire should be calling outs for USC? I would think they're disciplinary matters for the league.

What if another member of the offense commits the USC? What do you do if BR hits a home run with a runner on 3B, and the 3B coach kicks F5 in the butt as BR rounds 3B? To me, you eject the coach and report the incident. You don't call BR out and send the runner back.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Preventing a brawl and punishing bat-throwers probably was the impetus. But should the umpire should be calling outs for USC? I would think they're disciplinary matters for the league.

What if another member of the offense commits the USC? What do you do if BR hits a home run with a runner on 3B, and the 3B coach kicks F5 in the butt as BR rounds 3B? To me, you eject the coach and report the incident. You don't call BR out and send the runner back.

Then where is the deterent? Here is a scenario similar to one raised by Walt Sparks last summer.

Tied score, bottom the 7th, 2 outs with the bases juiced. Teams have been jawing at each other most the game. B6 gets a base hit and everyone moves up a base, but as the BR rounds 1B, he cold-cocks F3 and a fight ensues. Under the rules in place, all the umpire can do is eject that player. However, what difference does that make? Games over and the offending team won. BTW, to whom are you going to report the player and what do you expect them to do with that information?

Apparently, the NUS felt the need to have a means to deter such an incident.

Personally, I don't like the idea of ruling a player out without a specific play, but that is not my call.

[oppool]

F3 cold cocks R1 standing on 1st right after B2 strikes out to end the game. Which defensive team just won. Do we have a do over for B2???


Just wondering

Don

[greymule]

As much as we want to discourage unsportsmanlike conduct, I still think we have to deal with it other than by calling people out. After all, how about USC by fielders? Award extra bases? How about by coaches? On-deck batters? Softball doesn't have 15-yard penalties or technical fouls or a penalty box.

Perhaps ASA could institute a malicious contact clause a la Fed (but I'm not a fan of that, either). BR attacking F3 after the game-winning hit is despicable, but it's more a matter for the league—or, in extreme cases, the police. In a flagrant case like that, maybe the league could rule a forfeit, the same as if F3 had hit the ump.

Over the years, our local leagues have seen isolated brawls and "dirty" physical attacks. The most serious brawl, which included attacks on umpires, resulted in suspensions, civil penalties, and, for one instigator already on probation, some jail time. Once, at the first meeting of the season, one manager (the father of the above-mentioned instigator) cold-cocked the county recreation director after he announced that everybody would have to park in the main lot, not up by the backstop. (Five-year suspension from the league and some civil penalties. Should have been lifetime ban, in my opinion, but a couple of years ago, they put the guy in the local softball Hall of Fame.) Another guy was suspended 5 years for attacking an ump.

In the region my association covers, if a player is ejected for USC from an ASA game, he cannot play in any ASA game for two weeks. Unfortunately, all ejections are treated equally, so an ejection for screaming a long string of foul names at the ump gets somebody the same two weeks as a word he blurts out and then apologizes for after the game.

I admit that sometimes there's really nobody official to whom to refer such matters. At times I too have regretted that I didn't have more power to enforce USC penalties. And give me the main field with the big game and a big crowd every time over field #29 where I'm all alone with two out-of-state doormats that have nothing to lose by acting up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

And I agree with all of this. I'm not a fan of the new interpretation, just facilitating the information.

BTW, I don't believe ASA's code gives anyone the authority to "suspend" anyone without a hearing and an appeal process.

[greymule]

The suspensions are not connected with ASA. They are handed down by the county or township recreation departments and apply only within our area. The departments have a cooperative agreement that a suspension in one league affects all the leagues, a stipulation demanded by the umpires, who didn't want to eject a player in Lawrence on one night and then see him the next night in Ewing. But there is nothing to stop a suspended player from playing outside the area.

A couple of incidents over the past few years have led the townships to encourage umpires to call the police if anything serious happens, even if they see drinking in the parking lot (technically illegal, though it's been going on for decades). A politician friend told me that the various townships wish SP softball, with its hotheads and headaches and complaints from people who live near the fields, would disappear. Besides, said he, the votes are in youth sports.