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.

For those that have earlier versions of the case book, is the USC situation in those ones? I get the impression that it is not.

If it was not, it seems that this case play and ruling is an extemely important one given that a homerun is nullified and most of us officials would have ejected the player after allowing the homerun.

I have not done or played a lot of slow pitch in the last 6 years (changing this year), so I am wondering if the bat throwing in anger is happening enough that it warrented inclusion in the case book. When I played in the early 90's in Panama on the military bases, it happened enough that the officials were instructed to eject players but not a dead ball call with all other play being nullified and runners returning to last base touched at the time of flagrant misconduct.

He feels this may be trouble with nothing to back you up, I know I did. The only reason it came to my attention is that I take the test without the book. When I saw I got that question wrong, I checked the references and went looking for an interpretation.

This is the first mention of SP in this topic, but I've been assuming it applies to fast pitch as well.

Of course, it is. Unsportsmanlike Conduct is unsportsmanlike conduct at all levels and disciplines.

As I assumed, but thought for a moment it might be just to control the "adults".

If the adults acted like adults, many of the rules wouldn't be necessary :)

Exactly why "adults" was in quotes and why I thought (or hoped) it excluded JO.

It doesn't exclude JO, but the situation to apply this will occur less frequently in JO.

Obviously less, if at all! In my 16 years, I've never had a fast pitch player get ejected.

Mike,

Talked to Chick last night and his point, which you and others I believe have said, is that there is nothing in the rules that gives umpires the authority to stop a play in progress due to unsportsmanlike conduct. I thought that was happening in the flagrant crash at home but he says it is the interference that kills the play and then a dead ball ejection. According to Chick, it's a Henry Pollard rule and it may go away next year or we will get a rule into the book. So, hopefully no one will have to enforce this rule.

I'm about as naive as it comes as to the inner workings of the ASA sanctum sanctorum, but this "Henry Pollard rule" as you/Chick call it got into the Case Book somehow.

Because I have never seen an ASA case book or written interpretations, I checked ASAsoftball.com and softball.org and cannot find any rules or interpretations or cases. If they are online, where are they? If not, how does one get a case book?
Also, have you ever read POE #48, which includes such things in unsporting conduct as wearing a cap backwards, shirt untucked, exposed undergarments of different colors, coaching tactics that endanger the safety of players, etc.?

You will not find any of these online and you can order a case book at:
http://www.usasoftball.org/shop.asp?t=c&id=5

If you do not have the book, how are you aware of POE 48? This is new to this year's book.

However, it refers to "SPORTING BEHAVIOR", not unsportsmanlike conduct and are not causes for ejection. This is probably more a guide for the coaches than umpires.






[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 8th, 2003 at 07:26 PM]

POE are in the rule book. The reason I came across #48 today is that the index lists bat throwing as #48, although it is really #51.
I don't necessarily need an unissued case book, especially with no explanation of the $10 or $15 versions difference (possibly a $1.99 binder), but we should see the exact wording of interpretations and cases we have to apply.

:D :D I forgot about the difference between not-sporting behavior and unsporting conduct. :D :D

Cecil, I don't know what you mean by "unissued" case book, but I find the ASA Case Book to be an invaluable tool to me in understanding the rule interpretations ASA would like to be applied.

The first time you buy it, it comes with a binder. Thereafter, you can just buy the pages and take out last year's and put in this year's content.

Or, if you have an old unused Franklin-style 5 1/2 x 4 1/4 size binder, the refills will fit.

I strongly recommend the case book. It is a very worthwile investment.

Thanks, Dakota, I'll probably buy it because I like to know everything I possibly can. All I meant by "unissued" was that it is not given out to all umpires, like the NFHS case book, therefore not a standard. If it was, we all would have the same cases and the same explanations for consistency.

My bad. Since you were looking online for the rules, I was under the impression you did not have a rule book.

I do have a question though. Does your ASA state staff not make the membership aware of the tools of the trade?

So is that new this year that they are not causes for ejection? I remember my first year of umpiring and I ejected a player for wearing his hat backward.

It would be proper to eject the player for refusing to follow the umpire's instructions and put the hat on properly, but not just for showing up with a hat on backwards. That's probably what you did, right?

Dakota--

Yeah...He had started the game in left field with his hat on backwards. I called time and told him that he needed to keep his hat on the right way. In the bottom of the inning he came to bat and turned his hat around backwards. I called time, told him I warned him once and now he can watch the rest of the game.

Speaking ASA

You probably really shouldn't "eject" a player for this, but just not allow them to participate, somewhat similar to a player which cannot hold onto the bat when hitting.