From the ASA test R1 on 3B when B2 hits a fly ball to F7. Thinking the ball will be caught, B2 throws his bat in anger. The ball bounds off F7 and clears the fence. The umpire should:

a. rule a dead ball, call B2 out and eject him and return R1 to 3B

B. Keep the ball alive, scoring R1 and B2 and then eject B2 for unsportmanlike conduct.

C. Rule a dead ball, eject B2 and allow R1 to score

D. Rule a dead ball, allow R1 to score since he had crossed the plate prior to the unsportmanlike act and place B2 on 1B


The correct answer per the key to the test and in the case book under rule 10 is A.

My BEEF is there is no where in the rule that I can find that says you should call a batter out for throwing a bat in anger unless throwing the bat caused interference on the play and on this play there is no way that it could interfer with the left fielder chance to catch a ball. ASA even has a POE for throwing the bat which no where under that POE does it state that a batter should be called out and a DEAD BALL ruled for throwing a bat. Dont have a problem with the ruling if it is stated in the rule book BUT when ASA assumes situation such as this and then basically put it up to the umpire to call with no writting to enforce ASA is doing an injustice to the umps. I am not just ragging ASA here I am sure all the affiliations have common problems but I dont call them so I am not aware of them. It is very simple if this is they way they want enforce put it the rule book and not just the CASE BOOK for coaches and all to see

off rant

Don

Common sense says . . .
 

Answer B. But my common sense may disagree with that of the rules makers. (BTW - are there ever any errors on these tests?)

I don't know ASA, but in FED ball you don't call someone out for that USC act; the only USC that also results in an out is for malicious contact (and not then if the runner has already scored).

FED does cover a similiar situation in the Casebook under 3.3.1. A batter hits a base hit and is ejected for intentionally throwing her bat and hitting the catcher. A substitute is sent in to run for the ejected player. So in FED, the penalty for USC is separated from the game activity.
WMB

an error on a rules test ??????
amazing
(wink-wink)
fyi---
you should see the typos in the Florida
softball umpires exam------
memo to the FHSAA
---- edit the damn test !!!!

I would say the answer is B. As far as I can tell, the 2002 book doesn't support an answer of A, and I don't see any new rules that changed anything.

POE #48 [2002] says simply that a player who throws a bat in anger should be ejected. It doesn't say he's immediately out.

Are there ever any errors on these tests? Last year, as I remember, a question on the ASA test indicated that a ball that hit the fence, went directly to a player, and then went over the fence in fair territory was not a four-base award, but it is.

The ASA case book also contains a few errors, including some rulings that became invalid and should have been deleted when rules were changed.

It is not an error
 

The question is in the 2003 case book play under section 10 word for word and it says to call the batter OUT and DEAD BALL


Don

HEHE, that test was kinda screwed up wasn't it?
I thought I had really screwed up my answer sheet until I noticed that the test had multiples of certain numbers.

What did you get on the test?
I screwed up and only got a 93

Evidently we now have an ASA situation in which a player is immediately ejected <i>and also out</i> regardless of whether he had been entitled to an award.

Is bat throwing to be treated as special situation different from ordinary ejections, or does this ruling open a can of worms with regard to other plays? BR hits a ball over the fence, runs the bases, and, as he's 15 feet from home, calls the ump an obscene name. The ump ejects him immediately—before he touches home plate. Out and no run? If runners were on, do they go back?

Batter waved to 1B for intentional walk. Batter throws bat and calls F1 a #*$%! cheese-eating surrender monkey. Ump ejects batter. Is batter also called out?

Same situation. Batter places bat down and calls F1 a double #*$%! cheese-eating surrender monkey. Ejected but not out? Get a runner?

Batter doesn't like strike 1 call. Throws bat. Ejected <i>and</i> out?

I understand the seriousness of throwing a bat, but aren't there other actions just as worthy of immediate ejection? ASA hasn't had a "malicious contact" out. Do we have one now?

[Edited by greymule on Feb 20th, 2003 at 04:03 PM]

With all due respect to ASA, without some backup in the rule book (I'll even accept something in the POE), I ain't calling anyone out based on a Rule 10 case play.

Rule 10 starts out with <font color=blue>Failure of umpires to adhere to Rule 10 shall not be grounds for protest. These are <b>guidelines</b> for umpires.</font>

The intro to the 2002 Case Book states that the Case Book is to "assist umpires..." It is, in and of itself, not a rule book.

So, a Rule 10 Case Play is an assist on properly applying a guideline. Right.

I don't have my 2003 books yet. To those of you who do, does the 2003 Rule Book have any change in POE 48?

No change in POE48 2003 official rule book
 

That is my problem with this ruling. ASA bothers to put a special section in the POE of the rule book but no where in the rule book does it state that you should call the offender OUT only mentions EJECTION but the test and the case book says call the batter OUT and DEAD BALL


Don

I've posed these concerns to a member of the NUS. Hopefully, some insight will be offered shortly.

to scottK-61:
as of our local chapter meeting Monday--
we did not get our scores---
btw:
I allow myself a 15% margin of error
on those tests for reading mistakes,
as I do not really "cram" for them
like I would if I was eager to get "big"
games at play-off time !
good luck for the season

FHSAA Scores
 

You should have gotten your scores by Monday, we had ours on Monday evening and sent them out to everyone by Tuesday.
We had a serious drop in the average score this year, down from a 93 last year to about 86 this year.
But we also had about a dozen new people taking it for the first time.

Just off the phone with a member of the NUS. The ruling is correct.

I noted that even though each reference cited has it's own merits, there is no links actually connecting them to facilitate the ruling offered.

The ommission was acknowledge, yet I was instructed to support the ruling and I would receive the same from the NUS should a protest arise.

This applies to any time a run scores and there is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of the offense.

Handle it the same as you would an interference call except that no runs are allowed to score on the play.

Hope this helps everyone. I believe we will see a change in wording next year.

Thanks,

Thanks Mike
 

For getting the explanation on the call. I hope they do give us the backing by supporting the call with the ruling being written in the rule book next year. As always fully appreciate your time and effort in getting clarification



Thanks

Don

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]