ASA SP Game

Bottom 7th, tying run on 3B, 2 outs and the batter has a 2-2 count.

The pitch is ruled illegal by PU, but batter offers at and tops the pitch. The ball rolls in four territory near the first base line. F3 figures it is a foul ball and heads for the dugout while B4 heads toward 1B and R1 scores.

F1 notices the topspin is bringing the ball back toward the line and throws his glove and hits the ball to keep it from entering fair territory.

What's the call??????

Foul ball. In ASA you can throw your glove at and hit a foul ball. There is no penalty.

greymule,

You are no rook, and Mike said for rooks.

{Even if in the umpires judgement that the ball
could have gone fair?}

glen

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Mar 31st, 2003 at 11:14 PM]

Sorry. I play chess and thought of "rook" simply in those terms. I admit I was wondering about "rook" in the context of softball.

Wouldn't the illegal pitch decision result in the ball being dead and a ball added to the count???

Second thought, is this not a balk with a runner on? Runner from 3rd scores and game is over?

[Edited by woolnojg on Apr 1st, 2003 at 08:49 AM]

Mike specified Slow Pitch (SP). In SP it's a ball if the batter does nothing but a swing means that whatever happens, happens. I didn't register the SP at first either. Jim

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/F16-01.gif




BALK!!! What the hell is a balk? Who left the gate to the Baseball board open? http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/sleep.gif

How many times I've I told you about that?

There is no such thing as a "balk" in ANY discipline of softball and a released illegal pitch is not a dead ball.

Okay, for all you folks out there who are afraid of SP, http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/wink.gifoffer a ruling if this were FP.

OK, I know. The answer is, uh . . . Rook to Bishop four.

Nice use of gifs, Mike! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif Ditto on your balk rant.

Now, as to the FP call, are you still wanting rookies to go first?
Or, as Arnold Horshack would say... Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/wavey.gif

[]

Okay, for all you folks out there who are afraid of SP, http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/wink.gifoffer a ruling if this were FP.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know slow pitch, but would be suprised if there was a major difference on this.

Roger Greene

Okay, I was hoping to "out" some of the lurkers and get more people involved, but they've had 24 hours, open forum!

In FP, the illegal pitch is nullified only if the batter and all runners advance at least one base. Since that didn't happen here, the coach gets his (in this case obvious) choice of the play (foul ball) or the illegal pitch (ball on the batter and runner from 3B advances to home).

I agree with greymule on the FP ruling. Don't know diddly
about SP. I would think if a fielder used detached equipment
to keep a ball from becoming fair, there would be some penalty.

Go easy on my last remark Mike.

glen

Glenn & Grey,
Go read Fed 8-3-3b.1(c) and see if that changes your mind.

I'd think ASA wood be similar.

Roger Greene
(Score the run, place the BR on 3rd unless the offensive coach is dumber than dirt.)

Edit: That is an old cite. The new cite should be 8-4-3f,
and as re-worded in 2002 may have changed the rule.

[Edited by Roger Greene on Apr 1st, 2003 at 09:06 PM]

SP - Foul ball. Batter is out. Game is over.
FP - Foul ball. Grey has it right. Offense get's choice of play or illegal pitch. Assuming manager is not an idiot, s/he opts for the illegal pitch penalty. R1 scores to tie game and B4 now has a 3-2 count on her. Of course, the manager may think there is a penalty for throwing the glove and insist on the play. I may not lay it all out for them, but I will question their judgment. :)

There is no rule for contacting a foul ball with detached equipment in ASA.

[There is no rule for contacting a foul ball with detached equipment in ASA. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is amazing! No penalty even if it would have become fair without the illegal touch?

Roger Greene

My thought exactly.

BTW Roger, I don't have my FED book so cannot check
what you said in your previous post, but you usually
not off base....LOL

glen

Yes, it seems quite strange to me, too. The reason I knew the ruling off the top of my head is that I once researched it carefully, certain that it <i>couldn't</i> be right.

I'm glad that virtually no players are aware of the rule. If some of the SP leagues I do knew that you could throw your glove at a foul ball, they'd do it all night. Maybe we shouldn't publicize it here!

I picked up an old book. See the edit to my previous post for the current cite. It appears that the rule may have changed in 2002 with the new wording, but this was not listed as a rule change.

It may have been an inadvertant change, just like not having any way to put the BR out before reaching first unless she is taged, at least by the "written" rules.

I'm going to look for play in the 2003 case book tomorrow. Its bedtime now.

Roger Greene

That is amazing! No penalty even if it would have become fair without the illegal touch?

Roger Greene [/B][/QUOTE]

But you don't know it is going to settle in fair territory at that time, do you? Be careful! Don't fall into the ridiculous Patriot Act Syndrome where the government may anticipate illegal acts with no proof of them existing.

BTW, I could find no such rule in PONY, either.

I forgot that ASA dealt with the situation on this year's test:

Question #87:

B1 hits a ground ball that is spinning in foul territory but slowly heads toward fair territory. F3 throws his glove at the ball and knocks it away from the foul line, preventing it from becoming a fair ball. The umpire should:

a. Declare B1 out.

b. Declare the ball foul, award B1 1B and eject F3 from the game.

c. Declare the ball foul.

d. Declare the ball fair and award B1 1B.

The correct answer is c.

There is a play in the casebook about line drive over foul territory that is curving fair and somebody throws and hits the glove with it. Ruling is a foul ball.

Bob Savoie quizzed Chick Montrose on that play at our last meeting. Know where he got now.

O.K. I'm speaking Fed now but here are a couple of interesting thoughts.

1- What is the status of a batted ball that is on or over foul territory but is not yet foul?
We know a batted ball is not foul untill (Fed 2-25) one of seven things happens. (a) settles {ie stops moving} on foul territory before 1st or 3rd, (b)goes past 1st or 3rd in foul territory,(c)first falls on foul territory beyond 1st or 3rd, (d) while over foul territory touches something foreign to the natural ground, (e)while the ball is over foul territory a runner interfers with a defensive player attempting to field the batted ball, (f)touches the batter who is in the box, or (g)goes directly from the bat to the catchers body or equipment.

(d) is the only clause we can apply, and then only because of the detached equipment touching the ball.

The ball is this sitch was not yet foul, and according to the sitch the defensive player saw that it was about to become fair.

We can't discount our judgement about what the ball would become, because literaly in the rule book and case book we are told to award 4 bases if the illegally touched ball would have crossed the fence in fair territory. (Also we must judge the projected path of a batted ball which has a chance to become fair that is struck a second time by a batter. Fed 7-4-k Note)

The old Fed rule (through the 2001 season) had 3 clauses to cover detached equipment touching a batted ball. (a) on or over fair ground; (b)a fair ball while on or over foul ground; and (c) over foul ground in a situation that it might become a fair ball. The change in language in 2002 only speaks of touching a "fair batted ball".

Fed does not list this under "Rule Changes" (as it does other changes in Rule 8. There are no case plays covering this in 2002. I'll check 2003 today, but I don't recall any new plays in that section.)

Therefor, I ask again, what is the status of a moving batted ball, that appears to be heading toward fair territory? It is not yet foul, and it is not yet fair.

Does the touching by detached equipment make the ball foul before the detached equipment touches it, or does it make it foul when it touches and therefore no penalty should be applied even though the defensive team gains an advantage not intended by the rules? (Improper advantage being deduced from the prohibition of the rule makers of touching a batted or thrown ball with detached equipment)

Now, sit back and enjoy the protest committee trying to sort out that arguement. Oh, and while they are at that maybe they can decide which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Roger Greene

Roger,

I proposed this in ASA and I know you are talking Fed, however I believe you are trying to force an element into the rules which does not exist. Does the rule book TELL you to determine the path of any ball in flight and then make a decision based on your judgment?

You are asking the board to allow you to prove a negative and I just don't see it. You're making comparisons to rules that are not even comparable.

The ends does not justify the means. Bet you've heard that one before :) I told you to watch out for that Patriot Act.

If that's correct (too rushed to check), the whole play goes as if the pitch was legal because in SP the swing is all it takes to negate the illegal aspect.

You also don't know if it is going to settle in foul territory either. This just seems ridiculous to me that ASA wants us to call a batter out for throwing a bat into a fence which would have no affect on the outcome of a game, but wants us to ignore this play which has a direct effect on the outcome of a game.

[. Does the rule book TELL you to determine the path of any ball in flight and then make a decision based on your judgment?



[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes. See the Fed cites in my post.

I'm not arguing the ASA interp. I wouldn't argue with a Fed interp, if one exists. I just propose a logical argument for applying a penalty for detached equipment touching a live bated ball whose status of fair or foul has not been determined.

And, I hope not to have this sitch untill there is an official interp to follow.

Roger Greene

No, but I do know it was contacted by something foreign to the ground prior to becoming fair.

Now, concerning the comparison made above....are you out of your mind?

Rant on!

Have you ever seen a human being get hit in the head with a bat, thrown or otherwise? A bat-crushed face makes for some real grusome photo-ops. Are you aware that a thrown bat will go through your standard backstop? And just what is that on the other side of that fence? Oh yeah, your family and the families of the players. You know, the little 5/6 year old children that stand behind the plate while being amused by the pitching and hitting.

How in the name of anything can you compare an action which means nothing other than a foul ball in a GAME to that which jeopardizes the well-being and possibly life of another human?

Rant off!

I think this might be a bit more than just MY humble opinion,



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 2nd, 2003 at 11:56 AM]

Yes. See the Fed cites in my post.

I'm not arguing the ASA interp. I wouldn't argue with a Fed interp, if one exists. I just propose a logical argument for applying a penalty for detached equipment touching a live bated ball whose status of fair or foul has not been determined.

And, I hope not to have this sitch untill there is an official interp to follow.

Roger Greene [/B][/QUOTE]

Roger,

If a batted ball is in flight near the line when a ball from an adjoining field contacts it, does it make a difference if you thought it might come back fair or do you make your ruling based on the position of the ball when it was contacted by something other than the ground?

I'm not saying that someone shouldn't be thrown out of a game for throwing a bat. Throwing your glove at a ball that is about to become fair to keep it foul, to me is also unsportsmanlike and should be punished as well.

Mike,
Apples and oranges. What we are talking about is a live batted ball intentionally touched by by a player(or her detached equipment)participating in the game.(Exactly what is covered in other Fed rules.) The ball from the ajoining field or the bird flying by is very different. (And there are varying interpertations on the bird, as I recall!)

Again, I'm not attacking any official interps. Just proposing an argument for any codes without an interp.

Does ASA have a play on this point?

Roger Greene

While it may seem to many of us that the act of a fielder throwing a glove at a batted ball to prevent it from becoming fair deserves some sanction in the rules, it is clear (from the ASA perspective, at least) that the rules do not support such a thing.

Further, including the question on the umpire's test indicates that this is not some oversight in the rules. Clearly, the ASA is aware of the interpretation and wants it called that way.

IOW, throwing a glove to prevent a batted ball from rolling fair is a legitimate defensive play in ASA.

Just as getting down on your hands and knees trying to blow the ball foul.

I think it's a heads-up play by the defense. The equipment isn't being thrown in anger and there is no given that the move will work. For that matter, if it is late and hits the ball in fair territory, that BR is going to end up on 3B.

I am still trying to figger out where "four territory" is.....

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/egging.gif

Scott

Scott,

Just to the "left side of foul ground" LOL

me http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/think.gif

glen