What do you have!

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...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.

Except that there has been a concerted effort in recent years to remove intent from all interference rules. There are one or two exceptions remaining, but this effort was based on the difficulty of reading minds. Basing the interference call on the act, not on the intent, has been the direction. That's another reason why this particular case play seems out of step.

[tcannizzo]

By rule, without requiring any mind-reading for intent, nor is it a gray area.

FOUL BALL: A batted ball that:
A. Settles or is touched (not caught) on or over foul territory between home and first base or between home and third base.
B. Bounds or rolls past first or third base on or over foul territory.
C. While over foul territory, touches the person, attached or detached equipment or clothing of a player or an umpire, or any object foreign to the natural ground.
D. While over foul territory, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player attempting to field a batted ball.
E. First hits the ground over foul territory beyond first or third base.
F. Touches the batter or the bat in the batter's hand(s) a second time while the batter is within the batter's box.
G. Goes directly. from the bat to any part of the catcher's body or equipment and is caught by another fielder.
H. Hits the pitcher's plate and rolls untouched to foul territory before reaching first or third base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

To start #24: When considering the act of a batter hitting the PITCHED ball a second time

A doesn't mention it, but 7.6.K specifically notes this is referring to a FAIR ball.

You can turn this anyway you want, ASA does not forbid either the offense or defense contacting a foul ball.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start #24: When considering the act of a batter hitting the PITCHED ball a second time

I find the bolded terminology strange and confusing. It's not a pitched ball anymore. You hit a batted ball a second time (or for the first time as a batted ball.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I find the bolded terminology strange and confusing. It's not a pitched ball anymore. You hit a batted ball a second time (or for the first time as a batted ball.)

I don't disagree this could be confusing, but my belief is that in this case the reference is to a pitched ball has been hit by the bat, but has not yet reached a discernible point where the ball has gained a defined status of fair or foul.