Received a phone call from my regional UIC today. He reaffirmed that as ASA umpires when a player commits an act of unsportsmanlike conduct, the play is immediately ruled dead, that player is ruled out and ejected. Everything else should be handled the same as obstruction. The runners are returned to the base last touched at the time of the unsportsmanlike act. In the case of an active BR who is not the player guilty of USC, they are awarded 1B if they had not attained it by the time of the USC.

Mike,

Thanks for the update.

glen

Seems like an unfair, or narrow application of a penalty. An out can only be called on a batter or runner elgible to be put out. What about the runner put out at 1B who then flings his helmet into CF? What about the on-deck batter that has a few choices words for the umpire? Or any defensive player, on the field, or in the dugout? What if a defensive and offensive player tangle and take a couple swings at each other? Each player is ejected, but the offensive team takes a bigger hit for they get an additional penalty.

What would you do in the following scenario? Home team up by a run, last of the 7th, visitors have bases loaded and 2 outs. Hot head Charlie, coming back to 1st base after the the pitch, is bumped by F3 Sly Sylvester. A couple words, a little pushing, and then they are swinging. You eject them both, call an out on Charlie - inning's over, that's game. Sly's team pulls out a victory.

WMB

Unfair? Narrow application? Until now, you had NOTHING! Personally, I liked the interpretation the way it was just fine, but it's not my job to ignore what I have been told. Why don't we just rule out and eject everyone who looks at us cross-eyed?

Part of being an umpire is to be a bit more intelligent than the participants when it comes to the application of the rules.

Your scenario could bring a variety of responses. Being the good umpire that we are, we will see Sly Syl try to start trouble or hear the exchange or words and in a loud, commanding voice will instruct them to "KNOCK IT OFF!" After that, the first swing is the first ejected. Retaliation is the next to go. If reactions are simultaneous, they both get dumped at the same time. Any additional teammates in the fray will drop in order of participation. And, no, I'm not stepping in to try to break it up.

When it's over, I ask for the substitutes. If both teams can legally cover the positions in the BO, then game on. If not, the team that comes up short loses the game. If neither have enough substitutes, that then becomes the league or tournament director's problem, as the game is over.

If you think that is unfair to either team, TOUGH! If they believe it should be different, maybe they shouldn't let Hothead Charlie play for their team. And if pulling off his little stunt helps his team win a game is what make's Sylvester sly, so be it. Protecting idiots from themselves is not part of our job.

Glad to know that the time of the USC determines where we place runners. That was the one dangling thread. Apparently everything that happens until that point stands, so a batter who tries for an inside-the-park home run and deliberately mangles the catcher is out and ejected, but any runs already across count.

This means that on the play where BR gets a game-winning single and then punches F3, the run counts and the game is over as long as the punch came after the run.

Is the USC out to be extended beyond physical actions (throwing bat, malicious contact) to insults and obscene gestures? Guess so.

In the play where F3 starts a fight with the BR, I'd treat that separately.

What about this: Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B. Charles hits a line drive that F5 spears. Charles throws his bat, and F5 tries to double Baker up on 1B and throws the ball away. Charles was already out. Can his USC kill the play? What if Baker was indeed doubled off 1B?

If both teams can legally cover the positions in the BO, then game on.

No. You called an out on Charlie when you ejected him. Three outs! Game's over! Sly's team wins.

You penalized the defensive player (Sly) by ejection; you penalized the offensive player (Charlie) by ejection - and also called an out on his team.

My point is that only four players (three runners and one batter) of the 18 required to play a game are in a position to have an out called on their team if they commit USC serious enough for ejection. Any of the other 14 players (9 defense, 5 offense) can commit an act of USC serious enough to be ejected, but they do not receive an additon penalty of an out.

Rules are supposed to balance the playing field between the offense and defense. Equal application of the ejection rule for USC will not provide an equal penalty - an offense can be penalized greater than a defense.

WMB

BTW - Mike, I am not trying to fight with you, just offering what I consider to be a rational challenge to the results of the interpretation you were given. And in getting your response I will learn more about ASA. I have been an FED (only) ump for years, but last week I sent my $30 in to join MASA. I will be attending District and then State Clinics over the next couple weeks; I am currently studying the diffs between FED and ASA rules. I have been assigned to my first JO tournament in June.

So I am coming over to your side. But only for JO and maybe a local women's FP league. I still can't face the thought of doing Ed's (Trinity) AA SP!

IMHO

I don't know why anyone would want to umpire Ed's AA ball!
Once I got away from it, I didn't want to go back!

:eek: :eek:


P.S. Speaking of Ed, I wonder what happen to him coming over to this board? It sure beats McGriff's with all the
trolls! :p

I have little sympathy for anyone that commits USC. Retaliation is just plain stupid and his team is better off without him. You could say that the defense was the 1st ejection and the runner second that way you have no outs provided there are eligible subs.
We must also remember that no rule shall be imposed if it favors the offending team (ASA 10-1-L). With Greymule's play you'd have to signal delayed dead ball and give the defense the opportunity to turn the double play. Same thing if you have bases loaded, no out, and batter has a swinging bunt that stops on the plate, he throws his bat to the backstop while catcher steps on plate with ball and throws to 3rd. THEN I call batter out and ejected triple play! Jim

Well, since this is a judgment call, I guess I can pretty much do as I please without the threat of a protest :)

If Charlie is the agressor, than yeah, he's done and the games over. If Sly is the instigator and I know it, by dumping Charlie and ruling an out to end the game, I would be definitely be inforcing a rule penalty which without a doubt benefits a team which violated the rule.

This is the only time that I have been privy to the "intent" of a rule by the person designated to initiate it. I don't see this as a rule an umpire keeps in his/her pocket looking to throw at the first sign of a problem. I would suggest that this ruling not be used to hook boogers.

Don't read too much into it and definitely don't use it to threaten players. You don't need exotic scenarios to get use to applying it. I believe this is something that you will know to use when you encounter the appropriate situation.

Mike
 

Do appreciate your help on clearing up the ruling and hope ASA will state the ruling clearly in the rule book next year. That was my big problem was there is no where in the rule book where it states the OUT for USC in the book. Have to say I agree with some of the others in that I dont care for the extra penalty issued to the offense on the USC call but we will call them as told


Thanks again

Don

Re: Mike
 

Don,

I'm not particularly happy there is no reference other than the case book. But mine is not to reason why. The boss says make the call when appropriate, I make the call when appropriate. He says cite the case book play, I will cite the case book play.

ASA softball is what it is. You get paid to work THEIR game, not your or my game.

I, too, hope that this is handled in the proper manner in the next year.

Info on the USC.

Two weeks ago I asked the instructors (GWASA)about this play and all were unaware of it including Chick Montrose who said that this was incorrect even dismissing my point that Mike had gotten it from Bob.

Anyways, a litte later I found the casebook reference and showed it to one of the instructors who showed it to Chick. Last Thursday, Chick tells me he has had some interesting emails with Bob Savoie (Mike's reference to his UIC) over this play and yes we are to call it like it is in the book. It appears that this is one that came from Henry at a late hour (hearsay). Along the same lines, Henry did not want to let in an exception on catcher obstruction followed by interference play we went over on another thread fearing that it would open other exceptions.

Ron,

Now you got me second-guessing everything http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/doh.gif When you said "call it like it is in the book", is the reference to the case book or rule book?

From knowing Bob Savoie for years, I stand by his call. Out, ejected and return runners to last legal base. He doesn't often make wrong interpretations.

Sorry Mike, I should have said case book.

I'll see Chick on Monday at a meeting and get more info on their discussion. I'm interested to find out how Chick feels about the ruling after their discussions. I know that he felt that the rules book did not support it when I brought it up.