ASA Play
 

Bottom of 7th, tied score. Runnerish R1 on 2B, 1 out. R1 is off with the pitch. Catcher is anxious and lunges forward across the plate in an effort to get the pitch quickly in an attempt to throw out R1.

The hurried throw gets past F5 and R1 scores the apparent winning run. How is the Catcher's Obstruction handled?

Offensive coach gets to choose: award batter 1st base and advance runners if forced, or take the result of the play.

agree with the 'slow pitch' guy :D

Did the catcher prevent the batter from hitting the pitch? Not apparent from the OP. Game over. Otherwise, immediate dead ball by 8.2.D3.

I took the OP to mean that the umpire's determination of Catcher's Obstruction was correct and without dispute.

And in ASA, 8-2-D-3 does not exist, nor would it apply in this case (since we don't call the BR out on catcher's OBS).

If you meant 8-1-D-3, then you bring up something I overlooked - the play should've been dead from the moment the catcher crossed home plate to hinder the batter.

If there's a C.O. called by PU (and we can assume that seeing the OP), I agree
Otherwise, it's nothing than a bad throw and game over. Even here in Europe;)

While obstruction is not established in the question, it is implied, otherwise there would be no question. There needs to be more details regarding exactly what the catcher does, because the catcher's actions will determine the ruling.

Typically, since there is obstruction and the batter did not safely advance to first base (in addition to all other runners advancing one base), the offensive team has the option to:

1: Take the result of the play - (a) ball or strike on the batter-I hope the umpire called the pitch; and (b) the runner scores; or

2: The batter is awarded 1st base. Because only runners who are forced to advance are awarded a base, the runner is returned to 2nd base (time of pitch).

However, if the catcher stepped on or across home plate without the ball (ball didn't arrive yet) and the batter is prevented from hitting the ball, the ball is dead, the batter is awarded 1st base and only runners who are forced to advance get to advance.

ASA scaled back the language of Rule 10 (without any note as to why) a few years ago. There was a time when Rule 10 stated that no umpire shall impose a penalty for a violation of the offending team would benefit from the imposing that violation. In this case, imposing a penalty (the penalty for catcher's obstruction), would benefit the offending team. There is at least an argument that the penalty should not be imposed at all. That protective rule seems to have escaped the newer rule books though.

I did. It was late.

Some people must get paid by the word to post on this forum.

That was a valuable post.

You'd think they'd eventually get the hint...

Play nice :cool:

Are you realizing yet that your ruling is most likely wrong based on how the play was worded? That there is no option if the batter is prevented from hitting the ball because the catcher stepped out and obstructed?

Worry less about the length of my responses and more about the accuracy of your own.

And you should read all responses, including my followup in which I stated that I'd mistakenly overlooked this component.

I don't care about the length of your responses. I do, however, worry about your attitude towards the regulars here.

Well, trying not to be too wordy, I was confident that "lunges forward across the plate" from a catcher's position would pretty much give the image that the batter would not get the opportunity to hit the ball.

Guess I was wrong. ;) :D

Without regard to what everyone else is telling you, which you should listen to, you're also wrong on this. Since the ball became dead as soon as the violation occurred not imposing the penalty would involve returning the runner to first. Once the dead ball bell rings, you can't unring it to see what happened after it became dead (at least as far as live ball action is concerned).

I threw that out there for consideration. It's a rule that is often overlooked. The play wasn't overly specific. We don't know what the umpires actually called. It is something to at least contemplate depending on the play that developed. If a "normal" catcher's obstruction took place, this could come into play.

That's the part I think may need to be adjusted. Don't understand why this would need to be a dead ball.

But if it is going to be a dead ball, I like the NCAA's effect which awards a base to all runners, not just those forced. That would account for any OBS where a runner not forced being returned to a base if attempting to steal on the play and the special rule (8.1.D.4) for CO in an attempted squeeze play.

I agree. I see no reason why we shouldn't let this play out (once the rule changes, of course). Runners can certainly still score, and the coach may choose the result of the play rather than take the award. Just seems to make the most sense (thus, my initial answer).

xtreamump
 

The regulars on here are mabee wrong sometimes ? Change is good.

so is spell check

xtreamump
 

All of your posts, I agree with this one.

It happens, but it's extremely rare. Stick around, and you'll see.