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]

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.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/ranton.gif http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/misbas.gif

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

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.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/rantoff.gif

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. <snip for brevity>

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.

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 <i>proposed</i> 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.

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

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.

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.

Ok, then what about
 

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

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.

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.

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.