After being suitably (although indirectly) chastized for contributing to the morphing of a thread, I've copied this from the "missed something" thread to a new thread.

This comment is on the general situation of a B becoming a BR via BOB ;) Also, ASA only (or more correctly, no goofy NFHS interps).

Once the umpire calls ball 4, the batter becomes a batter-runner. The only thing special about this particular batter-runner is she has been awarded 1st base without liability to be put out. That doesn't mean she cannot become out. For example, if she walks into the dugout - OUT.

Rule 8-2E (running lane rule) applies to every batter-runner. The BR <u>can</u> be called out for being out of the running lane and interfering with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base after receiving the BOB.

But the key is "interfering." As with any other interference call, there must be a play to be interfered with. Just being pluncked with the ball while it is allegedly being thrown to first is not necessarily interference - where was the play?

Example (not a BOB, but bear with me): B1 squares to bunt. F5 and F3 charge the bunt. F4 is asleep and doesn't cover 1st. B1 bunts a slow roller down the 1st base line in fair territory. F2 fields it and fires to first. No one covering. Ball hits BR, who is running in fair territory. No play - no interference.

Example (more to the point): B1 gets a BOB. BR takes off at full run to 1st. F2 throws down to F3. Ball hits BR, who is running in fair territory.

IMO, this <u>could</u> be ruled interference. The play is to hold the BR at 1st (or tag her out if she tries for second) and since the BR is running full speed, F3 doesn't have a lot of time to step clear of the BR (at least that ruling is possible, IMO).

Example: B1 gets a BOB. BR trots slowly to 1st in fair territory. F2 throws to F3 and hits the BR. Not a play. Why? F2 had plenty of time to find a clear throwing lane, and there was no play being made on the BR (at least not yet).

That's my view, anyway.

What could be the possible explaination for the batter-runner not running within the three foot lane after a base on balls.With a ruuner on third base,that is a very common offensive play for BR to continue to second base.In an attempt to defend against that,F2 will fire down to first base to catch the batter runner off the bag.If BR violates the three foot running and interferes with F3 receiving the ball,we have a dead ball and BR is out.

Jeff

And I will disagree.

Point one. This non-play is for Fantasy Island coaches. As they do at the upper levels, return the ball to the pitcher. It is much easier for the pitcher to control the runners from the center of the field than from behind the plate.

Point two. If a catcher is going to throw to F3 after a BOB, the throw should be made long before the BR is halfway to the base where there is no running lane requirement. This would lead me to believe that a catcher who hesitates has been coached to look for an interference call which basically means they are going to throw the ball AT the runner.

Point three. A smart coach is going to tell his batters to turn to their dugout, toss the bat in that direction and WALK to 1B in the lane. If necessary, turn left at the base and continue to 2B. There is no requirement of pace the BR/Runner must utilize to advance and the idea is to entice the pitcher to play on them to give the runner on 3B a chance to score. Well, it doesn't make any difference if the runner walks, trots or runs full tilt as long as they do not stop or reverse themselves.

Point four. Unlike making an attempt to retire an active BR attempting to advance to 1B safely, the defender is NOT required to maintain contact with the base to "hold" a player which has yet to become an official runner at 1B. And is that restriction not the sole purpose of the running lane restriction for the BR in the first place?

BTW, each NUS member I've heard discuss this play basically scoffed at the thought of ruling a 3' lane violation on a walk.

And then you have the point that the BR is entitled, by definition, to advance to 1B without liability to be "put out" when receiving four balls.




[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Aug 31st, 2003 at 01:02 PM]

Mike,

What is the rest of the story????

<b><u>And then you have the point that the BR is entitled to</b></u>

Just wondering. Maybe you got cut off. Happens.

glen

I still disagree and can not find the rule to substantiate this not being called interference.This being a "Fantasy Island"play is not of concern to us as umpires.It is still a live ball play which can result in a 3 foot lane interference call.The time the catcher has to make the throw is irrelevant as well.I couldnt care less about the proper way to coach either the batter-runner or the fielders.Bottom line is if there is a throw to first base,and the BR is out of the 3 foot lane and interferes with the fielder's attempt to receive the throw,we have interference.

Jeff
NCAA Certified
NFHS Certified
ASA Certified

Jeff,

Go ahead and call it then. But please note that 8.2.E states that it is the umpire's judgment as to whether the presence of the BR outside of the three-foot lane interferes with a fielder taking a throw at 1B. Therefore, IN MY JUDGMENT, it does not.

BTW, if you want to be as anal as I, please note that there is no such animal as a "certified" ASA umpire.

You may have a card from ASA that uses the word "certified", but all is certifies is that you are registered with ASA and all that takes is $12.00.

Now, I understand that there are local associations which stamp your card CERTIFIED, but that is the local association, not ASA.

Thanks,

Mike, We stand stalemated in disagreement which isnt a bad thing.I enjoy all points of view on this forum and respect the opinions and knowledge of umpires such as yourself.I consider myself "certified" due to the fact that I diligently attend the ASA Clinics here in Pennsylvania each and every year.I also am selected to do District/State playoff games in High School Fast Pitch Softball(PIAA)and umpire the Div III College Playoffs in my area.While I consider myself a knowlegable umpire,I welcome and enjoy the discussions on this forum as I always strive to make myself better.Have a great Labor Day!!!

Jeff
NCAA Certifed
NFHS Certified
ASA Certified

[Edited by mo99 on Sep 1st, 2003 at 09:18 AM]

Mike,

Thank you for the "Rest of the Story"

glen

Tom, I apologize from chiming in late, but I had not read the original post until now. There has been some very good responses from folks much more knowledgeable about ASA than I am. I have not been certified with, taken a test for, nor paid my $12 to ASA for a large number of years now.

I only quoted above what I wanted to comment on. In the first sentence, I think you make an important point. A runner receives the right to advance without liability of being put out, but she may commit infractions before reaching first for which she would be ruled out.

In the second sentence, my understanding is that the rules state your example is not interference because the runner did not interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first. It is not as you say because there is no play... there is a play, just no player there to field the ball, which is how the 3-foot lane is worded.

In your the other two examples, I disagree with you slightly. The catcher can chose to act fast or slow. The interference call should have nothing to do with her indecision or how quickly she acts. I believe it was Mike who posted above that the running lane, i.e. the last half of the way to the base, should be the key. (Even though I think his opinion of interference or not is different than mine.)

Jeff,
Talk with Gerry (isn't he you PIAA chapter interp?) about this one. And have them check with Denny. Denny will tell you that Fed is very happy with their interp that a running lane violation is possible on a walk. He'll also tell you that neither ASA nor NCAA support Fed's interp - for the reasons already stated. Want more from ASA? Check with Luau.

Steve M

previously, on another thread:
Fortunately, later clarified that it has to be a legitimate throw to the base, just like any batter becoming a batter-runner, not deliberate throwing at the runner.


[Edited by CecilOne on Sep 2nd, 2003 at 11:06 AM]

Although I generally agree and say that a BR is a BR is a BR and can interfere with a play, the one thing that makes me think the NFHS ruling is wrong is "that the BR is entitled, by definition, to advance to 1B without liability to be "put out" when receiving four balls".
Not level of play, not strategy, not timing, not better coaching, not FI, etc. just the BOB definition itself.

However, in NFHS, we have to follow the ruling until it is changed. BTW, where is it published?

With other codes, if we judge the BR interfered with a legit play, what should we do? In fact, what if it is deliberate, allowing a runner to score from 3rd? Please answer based on rules, not what players or coaches should or should not do.

If it is deliberate (e.g. blocking the ball with the hand, etc.), ASA 8-2F would declare the BR OUT.

Mike (and others),

You are saying that the above quotes from my initial posting in this thread are false? IOW, you are saying that the ASA interpretation of 8-2E is as follows,

<font color=blue>"When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base for the purpose of retiring the BR...</font>?

I.e. since the BR cannot be retired by the throw, the running lane does not apply.

If this is the correct ASA interp, I am more than willing to correct my understanding and interpretation of this rule. But, it would help if the rule, or a POE, or a case play, clearly said that.

No where. The difference is that the BR is, by rule, entitled to advance to 1B on a BOB without liability to be put out. Your assumption that they can be ruled out for other infractions is accurate.

However, for interference to occur, the offensive player must be doing something to prevent the defense from executing a play. Now the question comes, "Where is there a play?"

The BR is entitled to advance to 1B, so there is no imminent play on her. The fact that she MAY come off the base is irrelevant at the time of the throw.

So, to rule the BR out would be doing so for interfering with a play that doesn't exist at the time of the INT should that be what the umpire calls.

I think NFHS is stretching it a bit because somewhere along the way a player got hit and they didn't know how to handle it, so they created an interpretation.

As Steve said, ASA and NCAA do not support such a ruling.