ASA Directive question
 

Does anyone know where the ASA directive came from on the following play:

Runners on 1st and 2nd. R2 steals second, as R1 remains on second. Ball thrown back to pitcher who gets the ball in the circle and chooses to make no play.

What is the directive? I hope it is that R2 is out.

And, would this really happen? :D

I had a coach suggest it to me as a possible play once. So, yes it could.

I'll be interested in the ASA directive.

Rita

Why would R2 be out? She's in contact with the base while the ball is in the circle and there is no rule forbidding two runners to be in contact with the same base simultaneously.

Actually, trying to correct the situation by returning to 1st base while the ball is in the circle would be a LBR violation.

It is not a directive, it is a rule. It has been covered in the UIC clinic and I believe at some point it was included on a Rules Clarification from KR.

When this occurs and it is apparent no one is going to move, the umpire is to suspend play and return the runner to 1st base.

That is too simple, we need something more complex with degrees of ITUJ thrown in to cause coaches ejections. ;) :p :p ;) :) ;) :)

No, R2 is not out... what for?

Regarding really happening, the ruling applies to any situation (for whatever reason) that ends with 2 runners on the same base, and a pitcher with the ball in the circle making no play.

Because she's not on the base she's entitled to occupy since R1 wasn't forced to vacate the base.
I know this is one of your favorite rules in the rule book, but maybe there should be an amendment to the rule.
I think that calling the runner out for the LBR violation would be a great teaching moment. You're not going to see this at older levels and making it a teachable moment at younger levels would be beneficial in the long run.
So, ASA's fallback for everyone that doesn't understand how to run the bases or get an out when we have two runners occupy a base is to have a do over?

Thanks, Mike - I'm looking for that rules clarification. I and another umpire cannot locate it.

Um ... but that's not illegal.
Except that she's not breaking any part of the LBR.

I took a quick look at a few of them, I couldn't find it. Then again, I know I've had this discussion in OKC and I thought on one of these boards in the past couple years.

I believe there was a case book play that covered this. (but that may have been before the case book was trimmed down)

This one is near and dear to my heart.
Back in 1999, when I was coaching, I conjured up this play named Chaos.

I wrote to M. Butler at the time for an interpretation and ruling.

I actually designed it to be run with bases loaded as a way of getting R1 an opportunity to score. No advantage if just 1st and 2nd.

As previously posted, you cannot invoke LBR because with 2 runners on the same base, it is the equivalent that they are "still running", and the only way to resolve it is to tag the runner that doesn't belong there.

The way Chaos was designed to be run, was that when F1 made a throw towards 2B, R2 would run towards 3B and R3 would run back towards 1B, drawing a run-down, and of course, R1 scores easily in the confusion.

And as previously noted, if the defense kept a "cool head" and made no play, after several seconds umpire kills the play and returns R3 to 1B.

Footnote: I printed the email from MB and would review with UICs before the first game of the tournament to get UIC agreement of the final ruling after potential protests, which I felt would be inevitable. Had a couple tell me that they would not rule in my favor, so I would not run the play in those tournaments.

Only ran the play once and it failed miserably, and never ran it again.:mad:

How did it fail? What happened?

Knowing Tony at that time, he probably ran the play just to spite one of the umpires who told him he would not rule in his favor. :D

I know it is in the case book i have from library2002 but it is not handy.