ASA - running lane violation with a walk

[DownTownTonyBrown]

AMEN!

[mo99]

While striving hard to understand opposing points of view,I am still not satisfied with the viewpoint that this can not be interference.I just spent some considerable time researching this in my umpire "library,"looking through my ASA,NFHS,and NCAA rulebooks,casebooks,umpire manuals,etc.I still can not find a written rule to substantiate that a three foot lane violation on a BOB can not be interference.The rule states in all three codes,that it is interference if the BR is out of the 3 foot lane and interferes with the fielder attempting to receive the thrown ball.No where does it state that there must be a play to retire the runner?It only states interferring with the fielders attempt to receive the thrown ball.If F2 is throwing down to F3 in an effort to keep the BR from advancing beyond her given base on a walk,that gentlemen is a play.I have a very open mind,but have not read anything to the contrary for this not to be called.If BR is not smart enough to stay in the lane on a BOB,and happens to get inside of the running lane and interferes with the fielder receiving the throw at first,we have interference.While I have rarely seen this situation occur,it surely can and the umpire should be prepared to make the call.

Jeff
NCAA Certified
NFHS Certified
ASA Certfied

Steve M. Yes Gerry is our interpreter and this was discussed with the District and State Interpreters and should be called if situation warrants it. Jeff

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mo99
While striving hard to understand opposing points of view,I am still not satisfied with the viewpoint that this can not be interference.I just spent some considerable time researching this in my umpire "library,"looking through my ASA,NFHS,and NCAA rulebooks,casebooks,umpire manuals,etc.I still can not find a written rule to substantiate that a three foot lane violation on a BOB can not be interference.The rule states in all three codes,that it is interference if the BR is out of the 3 foot lane and interferes with the fielder attempting to receive the thrown ball.No where does it state that there must be a play to retire the runner?It only states interferring with the fielders attempt to receive the thrown ball.If F2 is throwing down to F3 in an effort to keep the BR from advancing beyond her given base on a walk,that gentlemen is a play.

Jeff

Sorry, Jeff, but I have to disagree. There is no play at 1B and the definition of interference requires the defense to be executing a play. There cannot be a play on a runner who is entitled to advance to 1B without liability to be put out.

Since we as umpires do not have a crystal ball, we cannot take into account the possibility of the runner continuing until it happens.

I'm sure you will not be persuaded, but..well, it just isn't worth the argument any longer.

[whiskers_ump]

ASA and Most other associations:

A base on balls permits a batter to gain 1B WITHOUT
LIABILITY to be put out and is AWARDED to a batter by
the umpire when four pitches are judged to be out of the
strike zone.

I realize NFHS sees it somewhat different, but the above
statement is pretty clear.....

glen

[mo99]

Let me get this straight.On a BOB,the batter can not commit any violation in which she could not be called out PRIOR to reaching first base.She can leave live ball territory in route to first,commit any unsportsmanlike act,maliciously crash into the firstbaseman before reaching the bag,and of course violate the 3 foot running lane and all is well.Are we saying a walked batter has a "safe haven" to first base and can not commit any violation in which she could be called out?

Jeff

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mo99
Let me get this straight.On a BOB,the batter can not commit any violation in which she could not be called out PRIOR to reaching first base.She can leave live ball territory in route to first,commit any unsportsmanlike act,maliciously crash into the firstbaseman before reaching the bag,and of course violate the 3 foot running lane and all is well.Are we saying a walked batter has a "safe haven" to first base and can not commit any violation in which she could be called out?

Jeff

Jeff,

These type of situations were previously covered in this and the thread from which this one was borne.

Why rehash a traveled path? No one made the statement which you are raising.

However, if you want to stand firmly by the wording of the rule book, ALL wording should be considered, not just that which supports your argument, COACH!

[mo99]

Trust me Mike,I am working diligently to understand the opposing side of this discussion.I just cant seem do find a rule or interpretation that supports it.I try not to beat a dead horse as happens in many threads on this forum,but this sitch is not cut and dried.If it is acceptable in some associations not to call this,I am just trying to understand why.

Jeff

[Steve M]

Jeff,
I'll throw one more log onto this and then walk away from it. Fed did a very good job in making their interp known for this particular situation. Apparently neither ASA nor NCAA felt the need to clarify it - my guess would be that they thought it self-evident. Anyway, you have been given ASA's position by a state uic, among others. If you want to ask your own state uic about this, let me know and I'll give you Luau's email address - or you could get it from the Pa ASA site. Should you contact Luau, you can also check NCAA's position. In addition to umpiring a few of their games, he is one of a few evaluators for at least one major D1 conference. Since I have spoken with him about this, I do know what his position is - from both an ASA and NCAA standpoint. I have also spoken with three of ASA's regional uic's about this - it was one of the discussion topics at a national school a couple of years ago - right after Fed came out with their interp. Will you find it in writing? Probably not. Should the situation come up and you rule your way, I strongly suspect you'll take a hit on your evavluation for not knowing the interp of the sanctioning body. Your choice, continue to wrongly beat a dead horse, accept the value of what you've been told here several times, or check with your own state uic. When we work under the banner of different sanctioning bodies, we need to make sure we know their rulings along with thei rules.

Steve M

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Steve M
... snip ... Fed did a very good job in making their interp known for this particular situation. ... snip ...

Again, where was this written, was the "rescission" written and if it is still in force, why isn't in the current interp. list? I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that I didn't know about it, just would like to see the wording if we are still debating it

[Dakota]

Since I started this by stating what I thought was the ASA interp, I'll attempt to clarify what I now believe the interp to be.

The rule is without liability to be put out, not without liablility to be declared out due to some infraction of the rules. Hence, the argument raised by mo99 just above is at least intentionally provacative, if not just plain specious.

The issue revolves around the definition of interference. Interference must be with a play. In all cases for the offense to interfere, it must interfere with a play.

The running lane rule states that the play that must be interfered with is taking the throw at first.

The ASA interp is that since the BR being awarded 1st on a walk may not be put out by a throw to first, that there is, therefore, no play - just a throw to a fielder.

I was asserting that, since the rule does not say the play has to be on the BR in an attempt to retire the BR, that the throw to F3 could be for another play (e.g. attempting to prevent the double steal.)

Since this play does not commence until after the BR has reached 1st (and in fact, may never commence), the umpire should not use that possible future play as the basis for a running lane violation interference call on the BR.

And, BTW, this in no way means that the BR cannot be called out for interference after receiving a walk - only that it cannot be for a running lane violation, it would have to be intentional interference with the thrown ball, for example.

I realize Mike and Steve are both fed up with this topic, but I would appreciate further correction if I still have it wrong.

[Edited by Dakota on Sep 4th, 2003 at 10:52 AM]

[mo99]

This will be my final response on this subject and promise to move on.I umpire three different softball codes,NFHS(50%),NCAA(25%),and ASA(25%)strictly fastpitch games.(I dont umpire the drunken beer bellied slugfests)We have been given a definitive interpretation of what they expect to be called in our PIAA Chapter(NFHS).I was looking for the same from the ASA,which I was attempting to get here on this forum,minus the strong opinions.I take extreme pride in my officiating and am particularly satisfied with my ability to discuss a play with a coach if approached in the proper manner.I just was in search of the proper interpretation so I could convey that to a ASA coach when asked.I know an explanation would be necessary if BR after a BOB was out of the lane and interfered with a thrown ball the fielder was attempting to receive.That is all I was looking for,a definitive interpretation.
Jeff
NFHS Certified
NCAA Certified
ASA Certified

[Edited by mo99 on Sep 4th, 2003 at 02:43 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mo99
This will be my final response on this subject and promise to move on.I umpire three different softball codes,NFHS(50%),NCAA(25%),and ASA(25%)strictly fastpitch games.(I dont umpire the drunken beer bellied slugfests)We have been given a definitive interpretation of what they expect to be called in our PIAA Chapter(NFHS).I was looking for the same from the ASA,which I was attempting to get here on this forum,minus the strong opinions.I take extreme pride in my officiating and am particularly satisfied with my ability to discuss a play with a coach if approached in the proper manner.I just was in search of the proper interpretation so I could convey that to a ASA coach when asked.I know an explanation would be necessary if BR after a BOB was out of the lane and interfered with a thrown ball the fielder was attempting to receive.That is all I was looking for,a definitive interpretation.
Jeff
NFHS Certified
NCAA Certified
ASA Certified

[Edited by mo99 on Sep 4th, 2003 at 02:43 PM]

Jeff,

I believe that you received a definitive interpretation, but you argued with it.

It is apparent the powers that be for each sanctioning body have their way of looking at things, but not everything can be displayed in print for every possible scenario. That's why ASA has a managerial structure to pass the information along as necessary.

Obviously, not everyone is always going to be happy or satisfied with what is offered here and it is something we'll just have to live with.

BTW, I take exception to you analogy of SP softball.

Good luck,

[mo99]

Fair enough Mike.By the way,take away the ridiculous hi-tech bats and the beer,and slow pitch isnt that bad of a game.It has,however,really deteriorated in my area and is why I choose not to umpire it.Although we may have disagreed,I do respect your knowledge of the game.Talk with you again.

Jeff

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mo99
Fair enough Mike.By the way,take away the ridiculous hi-tech bats and the beer,and slow pitch isnt that bad of a game.It has,however,really deteriorated in my area and is why I choose not to umpire it.Although we may have disagreed,I do respect your knowledge of the game.Talk with you again.

Jeff

Thank you. It is obvious you study the game. Keep it up. We all learn on this board.

My problem with your statement was that too many people make statements like that and haven't the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

Yes, the local stuff can be much more recreational than expected or anticipated, but isn't that what the game is supposed to be?

Work the upper levels and you can appreciate the abilities of many an accused "beer-bellied drunk". Meanwhile, I've seen major league ball players swing and miss at three straight 8' softball pitches.

Good luck.

[Steve M]

Originally posted by CecilOne

Again, where was this written, was the "rescission" written and if it is still in force, why isn't in the current interp. list? I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that I didn't know about it, just would like to see the wording if we are still debating it

Cecil,
This was posted on Fed's web site. I don't know if it is still there, but I'm pretty sure it was there for the 2001 & 2002 seasons.

Steve M