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.

After posting a similar question a few years back Dakota pointed this out:

Strangely, in NFHS, after a period of inactivity with no attempt to retire the runner, the umpire is to declare the ball dead and rule the runner out. See case play 8.3.3 SITUATION B.

See: http://forum.officiating.com/softbal...iffy-play.html

I was going to save that honor for you Mike, as you would have probably told me that you would rule against it, just because it was me, not because it was a violation. :p

But this was 12-u. We practiced it a lot, but when we ran the play the first time, one of the runners (R2 or R3) was put out and R1 ended up not scoring, and quite possibly got doubled up.

Yeah, there is how you draw it up, and there is how the players execute it... :)

Understand the discussion, but what rule is being used for the umpire to suspend play because both teams are at a stand still.

We have had other discussions where the umpire can not suspend play at a stand still situation, and must wait until someone does something, because the play is still ongoing.

What makes this play different?

ASA does. (PS - I don't know about CAN NOT suspend play... I can't think of a situation where we CAN NOT... although I can think of several where a coach wants us to and I WOULD not.)

The Mexican Standoff Rule, of course. :D

Point is that the official interpretation was handed down and therefore enforceable.

10.4.A

Common sense. This is not a fair batted ball pending resolution; This is not the offense still attempting to advance; This is not the defense attempting a play.

What are Rule books for?
 

Young Ump, you are doing a good job keep reading the rule and case books.

To the all else if you are stuck on ASA please see 2012 Umpire manual, Rule 8, Section 3, read 3B then 3E, page 87.

Fellow umpires, we only enable less than knowledgeable coaches when WE allow them to attempt to circumvent the already written rules with some concoction they dream up in the shower(Chaos?, only in the coaches mind).

I am not sure where the rationalization of calling time and protecting the runner back to first base has come from beyond the fact that if a rule was not being violated, that calling time, by rule once again, allows no one to advance or be put out or play to happen in any sense beyond what the umpire is dictating. Did some Ump feel they were placing the runner in jeopardy?, So help her back to first - NOT!

I myself in very good conscience, would call time, call the runner from first out because they are not entitled to second base, and if CHAOS coach had a question about it I would explain 3B and 3E to them and move on.

What's your point? The rule you cited explicitly states that the defense must tag the runner to put them out, not a declaration by the umpire.

No, the defense had the opportunity to make a play on that runner and refused to do so. It takes two teams to play the game. What do you do in SP when a runner stands off a base and the defender stands there with the ball trying to stare them down? Do you just wait until one side decides to restart playing the game, or do you give them a few seconds to see if there is going to be a play, then kill the ball, put the runner back on the base and move on with the game?

You may have a clear conscience, but you will also restart the game from that point after losing the protest.

You have summarily decided the rules do not need to be followed, the interpretation by the NUS is wrong, and you are correct. Well, have fun with that.

2011 ASA Case Book

PLAY10.1-1
With R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, B3 hits the ball to F6. R holds up as R2 advances to 2B. F6 throws out B3 at 1B and both runners remain on 2B. The defense does not notice and the ball is thrown to F1. No further play is apparent.

RULING: The umpire should call "time" and place R2 back on 1B (8-3E, 10-1)

Then you would be calling this out in direct opposition to ASA's instruction on this play.

Yeah, but he's not "stuck on ASA"! :cool:

YOu guys still don't want to read the rule book - WOW! If 3E does not get you on the right track there is no hope.

WOW, and 3E also says the runner must be tagged to be put out. The ASA case play has been posted above.

Wow!
 

"the runner must be tagged to be put out" WOW! You guys still are not reading the rule book. Amazing!

Softball910, you have the distinct honor of being the person with the fewest posts to ever make my "ignore" list. Congratulations!

Which rule book are you referring to? The one I have does say under 8-3E that a tag is required. And Irish quoted you the ASA Case Book play that is pretty much in line with this discussion. In fact, the Case Book play references 8-3E.

Why do you insist that 8-3E justifies you ruling an out without a tag??

I've asked him privately to clarify before I address this more directly.