Interesting high school play

[SC Ump]

R1, no outs. The offensive team's pitcher is at bat, is hit by a pitch and awarded first.

Batter's ankle is sore and she walks gingerly to first, past first and is about 20 feet "down the line" stretching her ankle that had been hit. Offensive coach sends a runner out to be curteousy runner. She takes her place on the bag.

The umpire makes no acknowledgement of this, but does not comment on it. The original batter runner, then walks slowly back to her dugout on the third base line. When she enters the dugout, the PU rules her out for not touching first. (I was BU and frankly missed it.)

I then instructed R1 that she had to return to first since BR never touching first on the HBP negated her being forced to second.

I do not believe I've ever heard of a similar play.

[oppool]

BUT since you have a "Dead Ball" situation here. I know in ASA you allow the Sub coming in for the injured BR to proceed to the awarded base without the injured player having to go to touch 1st and I am assuming if a courtsey runner would be available it would be the same for them

Dont know about FED though didnt see anything on a quick scan through the case book and the rule book is out in the car and I am to lazy to head out there right now



Just some thoughts

Don

[whiskers_ump]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SC Ump
R1, no outs. The offensive team's pitcher is at bat, is hit by a pitch and awarded first.

Batter's ankle is sore and she walks gingerly to first, past first and is about 20 feet "down the line" stretching her ankle that had been hit. Offensive coach sends a runner out to be curteousy runner. She takes her place on the bag.

The umpire makes no acknowledgement of this, but does not comment on it. The original batter runner, then walks slowly back to her dugout on the third base line. When she enters the dugout, the PU rules her out for not touching first. (I was BU and frankly missed it.)

I then instructed R1 that she had to return to first since BR never touching first on the HBP negated her being forced to second.

I cannot find anything in FED book either. But since we have
a dead ball situtation and an injuried player that is entitled
to advance w/o liability to be put out and her sub has reached
1B prior to her being called out for entering dugout, I see
no out for entering dead ball territority.

JMHO.

glen

[CecilOne]

I'm not even going to try looking this up.

1) I agree R1 would have to return if there actually was an out.
2) We consider a runner who has passed a base to have reached it, unless the defense appeals. So, in this case the BR is safe unless the defense appeals.
3) There is a rule that an injured player who can not reach a base may be replaced for the duration of being on base before going short-handed. That was not intended for CR, but you might use it.
4) I can see however, that the PU can refuse to accept a lineup change while the play is still on and runners are required to touch awarded bases.
5) If it were me, I would apply "the CR may run for the pitcher at any time". The pitcher can not be out for abandonment on a dead ball when already replaced by a CR or other sub.

This is one of those situations that the rule about umpire-in-chief can rule on things not covered is all about. But if the PU rules an out, "things not covered" still applies.

[Steve M]

Dan,
I think your partner was looking for boogers and found a sticky one and then he blew the rule by calling the hit batter out for not touching 1B - that must be an appeal, and no appeal should have been allowed in this play. Cecil covered that one with the batter-runner passing 1B. I'm also sure that you were wrong in sending R1 back to 1B - that too was an awarded base.

Both Fed & ASA books are in the van, so I'm trusting memory & everyone else who hunted for Fed's position to say this isn't specifically covered by Fed. But, while Fed does not make mention of this, ASA does. Since ASA is the national governing body, my inclination would be to follow the ASA position every time that Fed does not cover it. Along with this, John Bennett's rules differences book (I have that on my computer, so I can do a FIND on different key words) also recommends that we follow ASA's position on an injured runner and the awarded base.

Steve M

[Roger Greene]

Steve is dead on. When the batter is HBP, all baserunners forced are awarded the next base without libiality to be put out. Further Fed states that no action during a dead ball can allow a baserunner to advance or be put out except for awards and legal dead ball appeals. Therefor you can't "undo" the force.

Cecil is correct that we have an apeal play on any missed base. Fed requires that runners be given the opportunity to complete their baserunning responsibilities during a dead ball before an appeal is made. CR entering game was allowed, hit battter had passed 1st, therefor no appeal to make.

If batter is injured and unable to advance to her awarded base Fed does allow a substitute (or CR if applicapable) to complete the baserunning responsibilities.

Roger Greene

[WestMichBlue]

All this discussion, and we are missing the very simple essence of the problem. APPEAL PLAY. Ump CAN NOT rule unless requested. There was no request. Therefore umpire is wrong for calling batter out.

WMB

[CecilOne]

2) We consider a runner who has passed a base to have reached it, unless the defense appeals. So, in this case the BR is safe unless the defense appeals.

touching 1B - that must be an appeal, and no appeal should have been allowed in this play

we have an apeal play on any missed base

[Smiley]

I believe SCUmp is from SC. In SC, we don't have appeals. When the rule change was made to require appeals for missed bases, etc., South Carolina chose to not adopt the rule change.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Smiley
I believe SCUmp is from SC. In SC, we don't have appeals. When the rule change was made to require appeals for missed bases, etc., South Carolina chose to not adopt the rule change.

The change was not optional.

However, and this is not meant to reflect poorly on SC folks, I find it hard to believe that the state organization doesn't have enough confidence in their coaches and umpires to understand the rule.

I have never believed the onus should be placed on the umpire, never will. I will admit though, when the rule changed, some of the Fed-only umpires found it hard to grasp this change along with the obstruction change.

[Smiley]

I understand it was not supposed to be optional. But that's what we are told at the clinic each year. I don't know what the problem is.

[SC Ump]

Sorry I've been away for a while and haven't responded to the post. (I've been finishing up some playoff and championship games.)

Me and my partner both agreed it was a chicken s&*% call. That is the exact terms we used afterwards.

The SC high school association for softball and baseball did not adopt the appeal rule as it was implemented by FED over the last few years. I did not try to understand why but just said, "yes boss" when I was told how to call it.

(I still have not been able to find the specific phrase in the FED book about allowing a substitute for an injured player that has not yet touched her awarded bases. I'm sure it's there; I just haven't found it.)

My partner's thinking was that the player was not injured in such a way as to prohibit her from taking her awarded base since she went all the way out to right field. We were thinking the rule used the word "incapacitated" as opposed to "injured."

Discussion by others have led to an even more chicken s&*% call possibility. If this player had been "injured" and if the rule (which I haven't found) states a substitute can touch the awarded bases for an incapacitated player, does that mean that only a sub could replace her, i.e. not a courtesy runner?

[SC Ump]

By the way, I fibbed a little in my statement above, I did ask why we in SC were not implementing the appeal rule. When the NFHS adopted the appeal for softball (I believe two years ago) before they did for baseball, I was told it was because they did not want the two sports to be done differently.

Then last year when NFHS implemented the rule for baseball, I was told that the reason it was not being implemented was because this was the only time that any sports official sees something wrong but does not call it. In every other sport, the onus is with the official to call rule infractions without being appealled to.

I can see the point, but I don't agree.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SC Ump
By the way, I fibbed a little in my statement above, I did ask why we in SC were not implementing the appeal rule. When the NFHS adopted the appeal for softball (I believe two years ago) before they did for baseball, I was told it was because they did not want the two sports to be done differently.

Then last year when NFHS implemented the rule for baseball, I was told that the reason it was not being implemented was because this was the only time that any sports official sees something wrong but does not call it. In every other sport, the onus is with the official to call rule infractions without being appealled to.

I can see the point, but I don't agree.

With all due respect, Dan, WHAT THE HELL DOES THE RULES OF OTHER SPORTS HAVE TO DO WITH SOFTBALL?

Shall we require a scoring runner to drop-kick the ball into the dugout to validate the run. Maybe the goalie (catcher) should be permitted to "check" the approaching runner to prevent a score.

And this year, NFHS moved away from the dark blue shirts for umpires because THEY LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE BASEBALL UMPIRES.

I go to the clinics and rate crews doing HS games, but I am very glad I no longer work HS games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have full confidence in NFHS being a sanctioning body for high school sports, but they need to get out of the rules business.

JMHO,

[CecilOne]

At first, I thought we were talking about the rule change that umpires don't call missed bases, etc, without an appeal. There were appeals before and after that change, the change was just that they are now required and we can't call the out on our own. But the discussion and "we don't have appeals" makes me wonder. Someone please clarify.

Sorry to hear that SC ignores the NFHS. Maybe they are trying to start their own federation with WA and MI and another state I don't remember.