do-over? DO-OVER?

[jmkupka]

Heard this play discussed between games this weekend... bunt up 3b line, F5 charges and fields it cleanly, F2 and BR collide as they leave the batter's box area.
PU judges BR would've been out by 30' even without the OBS, so can't in good conscience award 1B, can't be put out between the bases, so... we have a do-over.
14U PONY qualifier.

[MD Longhorn]

Tangle untangle at home plate is not obstruction.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Tangle untangle at home plate is not obstruction.

Ok I will bite....what do you mean this is not obstruction? From what I read in the rules it is either obstruction or interference. Have to judge which one based on the ball and fielders positions, but if F2 wasn't in the act of fielding a batted ball then we have obstruction. If F2 was in the act of fielding the batted ball and the umpire judged they were the most likely to make that play then we have interference. This wording is for ASA, NFHS would be making the initial play on a batted ball. I apologize for highjacking I know the original play was Pony.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

..... we have a do-over.
14U PONY qualifier.

No, we don't. At least not in ASA, U-trip, or NFHS, and I'm guessing that even in PONY this is not a do-over. If OBS was ruled, then BR gets 1B. No do-over to make it "fair".

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Tangle untangle at home plate is not obstruction.

I know that exists in baseball, but does it also exist in softball (and I apologize for asking, since I am on vacation and cannot access any rule books)?

And I thought that only applies when F2 is moving to field the batted ball (she is the "protected" fielder) right around home plate. In this play, F5 fielded it up the third base line. If anything, this would be obstruction on F2 since it's highly likely F5 was protected.

[Andy]

As I recall, the play as being described is the one exception to the "it has to be either interference or obstruction" philosophy under ASA rules.

The reasoning is that the ball, the defense, and the batter are all in a small area around home plate. If there is a tangle between the catcher moving out to play the ball and the BR running to first base and neither does anything to intentionally hinder the other, it's a play-on situation.

It may be obstruction or interference, or it could be nothing, but it is definitely NOT a do-over.

I will see if I can find some documentation of the rue interp.

[MD Longhorn]

I refrained from answering quickly as well, as I'm looking for the bulletin. I know it's been covered in clinics and at least one bulletin. Can't find the bulletin yet.

[BretMan]

re: "Tangle" play in ASA softball.

The following used to be in the umpire manual.

Simply because there is contact between the offensive and defensive player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred. This is definitely NOT the case.

The field is laid out in such a manner that it, in itself, puts the defensive and offensive player on a collision course.

The right-handed batter, for example, who lays down a bunt (FP) in front of home plate is on a collision course with the catcher when running in a direct line to first base. Each player at this point is within legal right - the batter taking a path in direct line to first base and the catcher coming out from behind home plate to field the ball.

When the umpire manual was rewritten (2009 if I recall correctly) the above passage was edited out. What remains of the old text is still there in today's book, in edited form, under "Collision" on page 253. The gist of it is still there, but there is no longer any reference to the batter/catcher tangle play specifically.

There's no question that ASA supported this ruling at one time. My question would be if they still do. When an interpretation is removed from an official source, is the interpretation no longer valid? Was it removed because they don't want it enforced like that anymore?

[MD Longhorn]

I think we need Steve or Irish to jump in here.

[Stat-Man]

Years ago, there was a NFHS case play that allowed for the possibility of a train wreck. I just don't recall what year. I'd be curious to know the NFHS perspective on this.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Heard this play discussed between games this weekend... bunt up 3b line, F5 charges and fields it cleanly, F2 and BR collide as they leave the batter's box area.
PU judges BR would've been out by 30' even without the OBS, so can't in good conscience award 1B, can't be put out between the bases, so... we have a do-over.
14U PONY qualifier.

Please tell us that you're kidding.

[jmkupka]

Not kidding, and I'll take the well-known east coast official's name to the grave

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Heard this play discussed between games this weekend... bunt up 3b line, F5 charges and fields it cleanly, F2 and BR collide as they leave the batter's box area.
PU judges BR would've been out by 30' even without the OBS, so can't in good conscience award 1B, can't be put out between the bases, so... we have a do-over.
14U PONY qualifier.

The actions of the defense, running into the BR, caused them not to get the out. By having a do over you are in fact rewarding the defense for committing an illegal act by giving them another chance. They lost the opportunity for the out when F2 made contact with the BR leaving the box.

I do have a question. How slow was the BR to leave the box? The BR certainly wasn't going to be bunting for as base hit on this play because she would have to be out of the box a lot quicker than that to even have a shot at a base hit.

[jmkupka]

I can envision batter squaring early, in the RH BB, and F2 is anticipating the jump.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think we need Steve or Irish to jump in here.

To my knowledge, there has been no change in that ASA ruling; it is consistent with NCAA and NFHS that this could be a "no call", unless one or the other does something out of the standard expectation.