What's the call and rule reference (ASA)
 

I had the following situations Sunday during a Co-WRECK city league game. We use ASA rules unless modified by league policy.

Defensive team is up 16-1 (15 run mercy rule)

1 out, R1 at 3b, R2 at 1b, B3 hits a ground ball to F5. R1 comes home. F5 throws home to F2 who catches the ball while standing on the plate. Her team mates are yelling for her to tag the runner, so as she attempts to tag the runner by stepping toward the runner, the runner, prior to touching home plate runs into her, knocking both the runner and F2 down. The ball pops out. I kill the play and call the runner out for the contact. One of the bench players goes ballistic and starts dropping F-bombs. I promptly eject him from the game.

The player is leaving the bench area still yelling up a storm. We get ready to continue the game the ejected individual is standing behind the single set of bleachers still making a scene. At this time I stop play and inform him he needs to leave the vicinity of the field, which he slowly does, yelling all the way to the parking lot.

He then decides he is going to be "that guy" and yell at me from the parking lot, which unfortunately is still within clear earshot of the field down the RF line.

Finally my site supervisor, who was on an adjacent field walks over and I tell him to inform the player he needs to shut up.

Game ends a few plays later. I am standing on the field emailing my officials and league supervisors and he comes back (with the site supervisor) to get something he left in the dugout, and decides to get a few more (non-profane) yells in.

What is the rule reference for the play at the plate (I think it is 8-7Q)? In that situation, the next play should be 2 outs with runners at 1st and second correct?

Also, what is the rule reference for ejecting the player for being an unsportsmanlike idiot? I was looking this up for ejection and I could find find an ASA rule reference which allows me to eject a player for unsportsmanlike conduct (I had another idiot get himself tossed a week before).

Also, one other play from this game. Fist inning, first batter, ground ball to F6, who throws to F3. The throw hits the glove of F3 and bounces right up into her face. She immediately grabs her face as the ball bounces away. I immediately kill the play due to the possibility of a significant injury to F3. What should I do with the runner who legally attained first base and was going to attempt to make it to second before I killed the play? Do I have the authority to put the runner on second base because in my judgment that's where she would have ended up had I not killed the play?

I would use 10.1, player leaving a bench area to argue a judgement call.

Unless the runner made an attempt to obtain 2B, I would leave her at 1B.

I have said many times that umpiring adult softball can be babysitting adult age children.

For the call that started the idiot going, you want the crash interference rule. 8-7-Q sounds about right, but I don't have my book with me.

IIRC, look in the definitions section under ejection. I believe it mentions unsporting conduct as a reason.

Your rule reference is correct, but I do have a question based on your description of the play. Did the catcher move toward the runner such that the runner didn't have a chance to adjust or try to avoid a collision? My understanding is that 8-7-Q is interpreted as applying to an intentional plowing of a fielder with the ball. If the movement of the catcher caused the collision, I would not apply this rule and play on.

10.1 is probably the rule you want to use for the ejection. Also, rule supplement 40 addresses Unsporting Behavior, even though cussing out the umpire is not specifcally noted in the rule supplement, I think it would qualify.

You do have the authority to place the runner at second if that was your judgement of where the runner would have ended up. I don't think that I would do that, however. I'd have to see the play, but it sounds as if the runner was only going to take second because of the misplay and F3's potential injury. Just something to think about. You were there and I wasn't.

Andy, the way I've found it interpreted it here is, the failure to avoid collision (which also causes the loss of possession of the ball in the OP) is criteria enough for an out.
The "intentional plowing" is what will also get the runner ejected from the game.

I'm with Andy on the home plate collision. He beat me to posting it.

The "crash" rule is for when a fielder has the ball and is waiting to make a tag. The description we're getting here says that the catcher "stepped toward the runner".

Would there have been any contact/collision if the catcher had not stepped toward the runner (into the runner's path)?

Not all contact is illegal contact.

If the misplay and F3's inability to field the ball would have allowed the runner to get to second absent a call of time than that's what you should award. If you have to call time for an injury the award is where the runners would have gotten had all the other players kept playing not where the runner would have gotten absent the injury.

Play sounds like:
F2 has the ball, standing on the plate, thinking "Force" (DMF2, but whatever)
Team yells "tag" so she steps toward runner. Bang, collision, loss of ball.

Of course, htbt, but sounds like enough time for runner to be thinking "slide, surrender, or avoid tag" as he's comin down the pike.

Unless he also was thinking "Force". Not likely they were both that clueless.

What do you think the runner would have done had the catcher not stepped to tag the player prior to scoring? I doubt the runner was going to tiptoe into and touch the plate with the catcher standing on top of the plate.

I wouldn't be too quick dismissing a call on a crash simply because the catcher moved toward the runner.

I could not agree more. Thankfully my next two games only a had a little grumbling and both ended in mercy's 10 runs after 4 and 1/2 innings.

One of the things the idiot who got tossed was arguing was that the runner scored before the collision (which did not happen).

If she had touched the plate prior to the collision, then I have nothing because she did not interfere with the catchers ability to make a play on a runner. (R2 would be at 2b and the batter runner was at almost to first).

I actually considered ejecting the runner for malicious contact as well, but since I never saw an arm come up or anything to drive into the catcher, I decided against the malicious contact ruling. It did cross my mind however.

Wait... you said, "The ball pops out. I kill the play and call the runner out for the contact."

Then you said you didn't have MC.

So why did you call the runner out, and why did you kill the play. If you don't have MC, you have a runner that's safe at home.

There's something I'm obviously not following here.

Mike...I simply asked a queston based on the description of the play. I didn't dismiss the call...just provided something else to consider.

Actually saw this one the other day at a local tournament. I thought the same as MD. I thought you either had 1) malicious contact resulting in an out for interference, runners return, and an ejection or 2) no malicious contact, with no penalty -- play on, likely with the runner being safe because the ball came out.

Unfortunately, 8-7-Q does not read that way.

So it appears that you have 2 different situations IF there was contact.
1) There was contact but not malicious. Apply typical interference penalties.
2) There was contact that WAS malicious. Apply typical interference penalties AND eject.

Now, we can debate what "crash" means. It sounds like once the defender has the ball, any contact by the runner while remaining on his/her feet is essentially interference. Only if it is deemed flagrant is there an ejection.

Crash interference and malicious/flagrant contact are two different things.

You can have an out for crash interference, but no ejection if teh contact wasn't malicious/flagrant.

This is to what I am referring:

If the movement of the catcher caused the collision, I would not apply this rule and play on.

8.7.Q makes no mention of intent (you know that, just sayin') nor what causes to collision though there is the need for some level of consideration.

It isn't as if the catcher went charging up the line at the runner, but stepped into a defensive position of the plate that was in the runner's path. A defender with the ball is allowed, actually expected to defend the base.

I'm simply stating that the catcher is the one who moved toward the runner that may or may not have caused the collision is not cause to not make the call.

I hear you two... but I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard of a play where that rule was used on anything but a catcher waiting with the ball. I'm having trouble envisioning a play where the catcher is moving toward the path of the runner (at least partly the reason for the collision) and 8.7.q was the call. I've seen LOTS where the runner reacted and was then called for MC. I've seen lots where the fielder led with the ball/glove and tagged an upright runner and the ball came out (NOT interference).

I can't recall one where the fielder moved toward or into the runners path and tagged an upright runner, and the ball went flying - and an umpire called INT.

The reason is simple. I, in my opinion think there is a distinction in the rules between MC and running into a fielder with the ball, causing a collision which knocks the ball out. To me MC means you intentionally do something to create the contact outside of the normal playing action of the game, such as lower a shoulder into the fielder, raising an elbow into the runner, or something else designed to create additional (and potentially dangerous contact) between a runner and a fielder. In this case the runner was running in from 3rd, but just kept running with no attempt to avoid the contact with a fielder clearly in possession of the ball well before the runner arrived.

The way I read the rule does not say you only can kill the play if you rule the contact to be MC. You can only ejected the player if you deem the contact to be MC.

Think of it this way. A runner running in who intentionally swipes the arm down across a fielders glove to dislodge the ball. Would you rule that MC? I would say most people would say no, but the out would be called right.

Had another play at the plate tonight that almost resulted in an ejection. Similar situation, with a runner coming home and the throw easily beats the runner to the plate. F1 (covering home since it's Co-Rec) catches the ball and is standing slightly in front of the plate, but reaches to apply the tag. The runner continues running in a straight line and runs through the tag causing F1 to spin about half way around and drop the ball.

What's the call on this. The runner made no attempt to dislodge the ball and the only contact between the runner and F1 was with the arm and glove of F1 during the tag attempt.

My ruling was ................. eventually safe, since the runner never actually touched the plate. F1 was so upset arguing that he never listened to the bench telling him I think the runner missed the plate.

I did not deem the act of the runner to be interference because it was simply contact while a tag was being applied to the runner. This is different then the OP in which the contact was not just with the tagging portion of the player, but a body to body avoidable collision.

I think you have to look at it similar to a block/charge in basketball. If the fielder has possession of the ball and is in "defensive position", even if they are moving, you have a foul on the offense for the contact.

In the event the offensive player has established their path to the plate and the defensive player steps in so late that the offensive player can not react to the movement of the defensive player, you are more likely going to have a crash and no call, in my opinion, unless something else happens to dictate MC be called.

One more thing. In the OP, the cause of the contact was clearly the runner, coming full speed at the plate and not making any attempt to avoid contact with the catcher who already had the ball. Yes the catcher took one step towards the runner coming in, but it wasn't a full running step and they collided. It was a step getting in front of the plate so the runner could not score before the runner was tagged out. The tag attempt was basically pushing the glove about a foot in front of her so the runner would run into it. It wasn't really a tag attempt as we think of in competitive softball. This was, after all, Co-WRECK.

No, I don't, this isn't basketball. I just need to look at the rule book and the applicable interpretations.

A block/charge is a block if the defender is moving forward. ;)

Thus I said similar, to not the same as. :rolleyes:

Good thing this thread is about umpiring a softball game, then.