What do you have!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

(Also, intent is irrelevant.) The OP was asking about the bat hitting the ball, but the tread has managed to deviate to also include the player contacting a batted ball.

Not really... the OP was:

She sees the ball is heading toward fair territory. She hits the ball again

IOW - she saw it, noticed it was heading to fair territory, and INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...and INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

Rule cite, please.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Please note that this rule only applies to the BAT hitting the ball a second time, not the BATTER merely contacting the ball. (Also, intent is irrelevant.) The OP was asking about the bat hitting the ball, but the tread has managed to deviate to also include the player contacting a batted ball.

Ok, fine. Let's get back on point.

Sitch: Batter hits a dribbler up the first base line that is in foul territory. She takes off for first base with bat in hand. It appears the ball is going to go into fair territory, so:

1. She intentionally hits the ball with her bat in her hand while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

2. She intentionally drops the bat onto the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

3. She intentionally kicks the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

In FED, she's out under all three. What is her disposition in ASA?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Rule cite, please.

What? My statement was that the OP stated XXX... I need a rule cite to back up my statement explaining what the OP was asking? What?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What is her disposition in ASA?

Safe / foul ball on all three.

And shouldn't be.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

Originally Posted by Dakota

Rule cite, please.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

What? My statement was that the OP stated XXX... I need a rule cite to back up my statement explaining what the OP was asking? What?

You stated that whether a batter hit a batted ball over foul territory a second time with her bat, leg, hand or face was irrelevant and at least implied that intent was relevant. Can you back that up with the rules (especially NFHS or other non-ASA softball, since it has also been stated that ASA is alone in how this would be treated)? If that's not what you were saying, then I misunderstood.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Ok, fine. Let's get back on point.

Sitch: Batter hits a dribbler up the first base line that is in foul territory. She takes off for first base with bat in hand. It appears the ball is going to go into fair territory, so:

1. She intentionally hits the ball with her bat in her hand while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

2. She intentionally drops the bat onto the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

3. She intentionally kicks the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

In FED, she's out under all three. What is her disposition in ASA?

Rule cite on #3?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Mike, this is uncalled for. You've posted numerous times what you think this rule or that rule SHOULD be. Many of us have. He cares, so do you, so do I, so do most of us here.

I don't think it is. I understand it, but solely as an umpire, why do we care about what we think is fair or not? How many times have you heard an umpire make up or bend a rule to be "fair"? Or this or that is not going to happen in my game because it isn't fair?

Many believe it isn't fair to allow a player to top the ball and hit a slow roller in the SP infield, but it's legal? And if you think that is an exaggeration, there have been some serious arguments on the Stadium field at the A level because there have been players come in and do just that. It is almost an automatic base hit, but it is legal.

I care about the consistency among rules, the ability to enforce them and the manner of application, and hopefully the ability to find logic though we all know that is a dream. IOW, how does it affect me as the umpire. Are there some rules I believe to be unfair or need fixing? Sure, that why there are rule changes. But as the umpire, it isn't my job to worry about fair unless the situation is not covered by a rule(s).

All this talk about the intention of the batter to keep the ball foul. What about the intention of the fielder who throws the glove from 20' to keep the ball foul? Is that fair? AFAIC, it is because the rule says it is.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You stated that whether a batter hit a batted ball over foul territory a second time with her bat, leg, hand or face was irrelevant and at least implied that intent was relevant. Can you back that up with the rules (especially NFHS or other non-ASA softball, since it has also been stated that ASA is alone in how this would be treated)? If that's not what you were saying, then I misunderstood.

No... I did NOT state that. The NFHS rule has been posted (one for intentional, one for inadvertent 2nd hit with the bat). I can't give you an ASA rule site for a rule that should exist but doesn't.

What I was stating is that the ORIGINAL POST gave a situation where the batter clearly and intentionally stopped the ball from going fair - whether they did so with their foot, bat, or left ear doesn't matter and is not stated.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think it is. I understand it, but solely as an umpire, why do we care about what we think is fair or not? How many times have you heard an umpire make up or bend a rule to be "fair"? Or this or that is not going to happen in my game because it isn't fair?

Understood ... but THIS post (or at least where it evolved) is about whether the rule SHOULD BE what it is, in ASA (and it kind of went there due to a response to one of your posts). I would NEVER EVER condone an umpire bending or ignoring a rule to satisfy his own personal sense of fairness --- in fact, you've seen me beat up umpires here for doing the same. However, we all (both of us included) have posted occasionally where we thought a rule should not be what it is. You're allowed to. I'm allowed to. It may not be our job ... but we care anyway. We shouldn't jump on someone for caring about changing a rule.

All this talk about the intention of the batter to keep the ball foul. What about the intention of the fielder who throws the glove from 20' to keep the ball foul? Is that fair? AFAIC, it is because the rule says it is.

Well ... tbh, I'm consistent here in that I don't think THAT is fair either. Same reason. they can't do it ON the field, why should they be able to do it on a ball that is in foul territory but not yet foul.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Rule cite on #3?

From the NFHS Softball Case Book:

"8.2.6 SITUATION B: B1 hits a ball off the tip of the bat causing the ball to spin just outside the foul line. As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore, she (a) kicks or (b) hits the ball with her bat to prevent it from becoming fair. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If in the umpire's judgment the ball could have become fair, B1 shall be declared out."

Pretty cut-n-dried. And consistent.

I also contend that under ASA RS #24A, the batter is out for 1. and 2. under ASA. The supplement says, "If, when the bat contacts the ball [a second time] a batter’s entire foot is completely outside the batter’s box, the batter is out." In my 1. and 2., the batter is running up the first base line and intentionally hits the ball with the bat, so she clearly has a foot out of the batter's box. Or am I wrong in my assumption in what the RS language intends here?

If it is indeed an out in ASA for 1. and 2., then why isn't it an out for 3? That's where I feel the rulings are inconsistent in ASA.

[Dakota]

It is interesting to note the actual rule that case play is apparently referencing:

8-2 BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT
ART. 6 . . . The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base, or (F.P.) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgment, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batterrunner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

Note that there is no reference to a BR making contact with a batted ball in foul territory. This is, therefore, an interpretation rather than a rule.

Question 1: change BR to R1 on 3rd. What is the applicable rule, and what is the ruling?

Question 2: Delete the words "As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore," (removing the magic mind reading going on in the case play), and what is the ruling, and what is your rule backing. Answer for both BR and R1.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Note that there is no reference to a BR making contact with a batted ball in foul territory. This is, therefore, an interpretation rather than a rule.

Semantics. Or are you suggesting that the case book ruling is not enforceable since it isn't an actual rule? I guess I'm missing your point here.

We have an authoritative NFHS interpretation on how to handle the three scenarios I proposed. So what if the actual rule the interpretation references doesn't specifically mention a batted ball in foul territory? It is clear to me that the case book play directs us that a batted ball that the umpire judges may go fair, is treated exactly the same, for all intents and purposes under 8-2-6, as a batted ball in fair territory.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Question 1: change BR to R1 on 3rd. What is the applicable rule, and what is the ruling?

The applicable rule could be 8-6-10 or 8-6-11 if NFHS felt this infraction was commensurate with their 8.2.6.B case book interpretation. I'm willing to bet that if you asked this question to the NFHS powers-that-be, they may very well add a case book play under 8.6.11 to answer your question. As it stands right now, however, there is no written rule or interpretation.

Does that mean that NFHS gives other runners carte blanche permission to intentionally contact foul balls that umpires judge may go fair, while specifically prohibiting batter-runners from doing so? Or does that mean they've inadvertently left this unaddressed? I'm guessing it's the latter.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Question 2: Delete the words "As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore," (removing the magic mind reading going on in the case play), and what is the ruling, and what is your rule backing. Answer for both BR and R1.

C'mon, Tom. Why on God's green earth would B1 (a) kick or (b) hit the ball with her bat in the given case play? I'm fairly confident it would be an easy sell for me to explain to B1's coach what I judged happened here.

As for R1, my answer to your Question 1 applies.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Semantics. Or are you suggesting that the case book ruling is not enforceable since it isn't an actual rule? I guess I'm missing your point here.

We have an authoritative NFHS interpretation on how to handle the three scenarios I proposed. So what if the actual rule the interpretation references doesn't specifically mention a batted ball in foul territory? It is clear to me that the case book play directs us that a batted ball that the umpire judges may go fair, is treated exactly the same, for all intents and purposes under 8-2-6, as a batted ball in fair territory.

My point is not that it is not authoritative, but that the softball rules interpreters have a track record of putting their hobby horses into official interpretations. Further, the rule does specifically mention fair batted ball, at least implying that the rules committee/writers were making a distinction. It is generally a lot easier to add an interpretation to a case play than to change the rule, leaving case plays somewhat at the mercy of said hobby horses.

Originally Posted by Manny A

The applicable rule could be 8-6-10 or 8-6-11 if NFHS felt this infraction was commensurate with their 8.2.6.B case book interpretation. I'm willing to bet that if you asked this question to the NFHS powers-that-be, they may very well add a case book play under 8.6.11 to answer your question. As it stands right now, however, there is no written rule or interpretation.

Does that mean that NFHS gives other runners carte blanche permission to intentionally contact foul balls that umpires judge may go fair, while specifically prohibiting batter-runners from doing so? Or does that mean they've inadvertently left this unaddressed? I'm guessing it's the latter.



C'mon, Tom. Why on God's green earth would B1 (a) kick or (b) hit the ball with her bat in the given case play? I'm fairly confident it would be an easy sell for me to explain to B1's coach what I judged happened here.

As for R1, my answer to your Question 1 applies.

Why on God's green earth? You are kidding, right? Bats are generally tossed and runners are generally running in foul territory between 3B and home and between home and 1B.

Bottom line: this is someone's idea of what is "fair" and is not backed by the rules themselves. It requires the umpire to read the mind of the BR/R and further to determine what "has a chance" or "could become fair" means. Where is the line here? Does "has a chance"/"could become fair" include ALL slow rollers? Does it include a ball rolling away from the foul line but with enough speed so a bump in the dirt could change its direction? "In foul ground" is a firm situation. I wish someone WOULD demand to know why R1 is treated differently from BR in this situation. The hue and cry from coaches if such a change was attempted would at least be entertaining... ever heard coaches tell runners on 3B to advance in foul territory and retreat in fair? What happens to that? JMO.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

My point is not that it is not authoritative, but that the softball rules interpreters have a track record of putting their hobby horses into official interpretations. Further, the rule does specifically mention fair batted ball, at least implying that the rules committee/writers were making a distinction. It is generally a lot easier to add an interpretation to a case play than to change the rule, leaving case plays somewhat at the mercy of said hobby horses.

Well, I certainly can't address what those interpreters have done in the past, because I haven't been doing this long enough to know their previous track record. The only thing I can do is go with what is printed in an authoritative document, whether it be the actual rule book or the supporting case book.

Originally Posted by Dakota

It requires the umpire to read the mind of the BR/R and further to determine what "has a chance" or "could become fair" means. Where is the line here?

No different than other grey areas in the rules, Tom. Umpires have to decide what bases runners could have reached minus an obstruction. They have to judge whether or not another fielder might have made an out on a batted ball that gets by an initial fielder and contacts a runner. They have to read a runner's mind when she keeps running after being retired. It's why we get paid the big bux.