Illegal Glove

[MD Longhorn]

Trivia stolen from elsewhere. Usually dumb and easy scenarios, but this one is good.

Ruling for NCAA, ASA, Fed:

Runner on 2nd, 1 out. On a base hit to right field, the runner misses 3rd and scores. Immediately following the play, it is discovered that the right fielder used an illegal glove. The offensive coach takes the option of the play scoring the run. The defense then properly appeals the runner missing 3rd. Result?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Trivia stolen from elsewhere. Usually dumb and easy scenarios, but this one is good.

Ruling for NCAA, ASA, Fed:

Runner on 2nd, 1 out. On a base hit to right field, the runner misses 3rd and scores. Immediately following the play, it is discovered that the right fielder used an illegal glove. The offensive coach takes the option of the play scoring the run. The defense then properly appeals the runner missing 3rd. Result?

Treat like an awarded base, all bases must be touched legally, with DB time for runner to do so.

[BretMan]

I'm trying to think of a reason to not honor the missed base appeal...but I can't.

Unless it's that the offensive coach picked the result of the play and now the final result of the play has changed. But I see the result of the play as being "the runner from second advanced to home, missing third base along the way". That's the option the coach picked, so that's what we have.

[Manny A]

I, too, would argue that the appeal would stand. Bases passed are bases achieved, so the "play" that is given as an option for the offensive coach to choose from would not be affected by his/her runner's infraction. The umpire would certainly not tell the coach, "Well, if you accept the play, your runner will score if the defense doesn't subsequently appeal the fact that she missed third."

[Tex]

Agree with BretMan and CeiclOne.

I had a very similar case this year while BU.

On a hit ground ball to the outfield, there was obstruction at 3rd base (blocking the base), and the runner missed 3rd base on the way to scoring at home plate.

The defense properly appealed the missed base.

I immediately called both coaches and the PU together and explained, that there were 2 infractions on this play at 3rd base: obstruction by the 3rd baseman and the runner missed 3rd base. I sent the scored runner back to 3rd base.

Both coaches agreed. Next batter. I still don't know if this was the proper call, but all were pleased.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tex

Agree with BretMan and CeiclOne.

I had a very similar case this year while BU.

On a hit ground ball to the outfield, there was obstruction at 3rd base (blocking the base), and the runner missed 3rd base on the way to scoring at home plate.

The defense properly appealed the missed base.

I immediately called both coaches and the PU together and explained, that there were 2 infractions on this play at 3rd base: obstruction by the 3rd baseman and the runner missed 3rd base. I sent the scored runner back to 3rd base.

Both coaches agreed. Next batter. I still don't know if this was the proper call, but all were pleased.

It's not. But this is different from the OP, where a coach first has to choose between play and penalty, and THEN there's an appeal.

In your case, you should not hold a press conference - you simply announce the obstruction and the award (home - not 3rd!). The offense then has the opportunity to retouch home, 3rd, home, if they want to. You don't announce this though. Then, after it's obvious whether offense is going to do anything, the defense may appeal the miss - and she's out.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's not. But this is different from the OP, where a coach first has to choose between play and penalty, and THEN there's an appeal.

In your case, you should not hold a press conference - you simply announce the obstruction and the award (home - not 3rd!). The offense then has the opportunity to retouch home, 3rd, home, if they want to. You don't announce this though. Then, after it's obvious whether offense is going to do anything, the defense may appeal the miss - and she's out.

I guess you are saying that time to the runner had time to score and that only the missed base was caused by the obstruction.

If so, then why is she out, the award should negate the OBS?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I guess you are saying that time to the runner had time to score and that only the missed base was caused by the obstruction.

Grammar's a bit odd here, so I'm not positive I know what you're trying to ask me... but...

If so, then why is she out, the award should negate the OBS?

She's out because she's required to run the bases correctly. This is made exceedingly clear in the rulebook. The award of home is intended to negate the OBS. And she's allowed to fulfill her baserunning duties when that award is made before any appeals will be honored. But if she chooses not to do so ...

[MD Longhorn]

Let me restate a bit, after re-reading your first statement. There's a school of thought out there that if the OBS CAUSES the miss (which wasn't clear in the OP, but a possibility), then the miss should be ignored. It's not exactly supported by the way the rule is written, but I get that and believe Irish belongs to that school of thought (not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth).

But even if you believe in that, and subscribe to that school ... Tex's ruling is still incorrect - the award of 3rd is wrong no matter which way you look at this. It's either an out, or it's home. Can't be 3rd.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Trivia stolen from elsewhere. Usually dumb and easy scenarios, but this one is good.

Ruling for NCAA, ASA, Fed:

Runner on 2nd, 1 out. On a base hit to right field, the runner misses 3rd and scores. Immediately following the play, it is discovered that the right fielder used an illegal glove. The offensive coach takes the option of the play scoring the run. The defense then properly appeals the runner missing 3rd. Result?

In ASA they no longer have the illegal glove unless you are talking about the size of the glove. You can use any type of glove at any position.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

In ASA they no longer have the illegal glove unless you are talking about the size of the glove. You can use any type of glove at any position.

So I'll just mark out 8-8-O then.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So I'll just mark out 8-8-O then.

Go back and read what I said. The only thing that makes a glove illegal now is its size. Or perhaps the color. Any defender may use any glove/mitt in any position while on defense. And I'm certain that my post mentioned size...did it not?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Let me restate a bit, after re-reading your first statement. There's a school of thought out there that if the OBS CAUSES the miss (which wasn't clear in the OP, but a possibility), then the miss should be ignored. It's not exactly supported by the way the rule is written, but I get that and believe Irish belongs to that school of thought (not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth).

Interesting school of thought. And that's the case for small white ball play, at least under pro rules.

But I've always believed that in softball, runners were still obligated to touch their bases, even if obstructed from them initially. That's how the rules read anyway. The time it takes for them to adjust and eventually touch the base after being hindered is taken into account during the obstruction award.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

Go back and read what I said. The only thing that makes a glove illegal now is its size. Or perhaps the color. Any defender may use any glove/mitt in any position while on defense. And I'm certain that my post mentioned size...did it not?

Sure... so I guess I'm asking what was your point. The post was about the penalty and application for an illegal glove. So what was the point of your post?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Interesting school of thought. And that's the case for small white ball play, at least under pro rules.

But I've always believed that in softball, runners were still obligated to touch their bases, even if obstructed from them initially. That's how the rules read anyway. The time it takes for them to adjust and eventually touch the base after being hindered is taken into account during the obstruction award.

I agree with you 100%.