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.

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

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.

ASA and Most other associations:

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

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

glen

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! ;)

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

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

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

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

The rule is <u>without liability to be <b>put out</b></u>, 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 <u>must</u> 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 <u>may not</u> be <u>put out</u> 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 <u>could</u> be for another play (e.g. attempting to prevent the double steal.)

Since this play does not commence until <u>after</u> 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]

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,

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.

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

It was also listed in the POE section in the 2002 book. Don't know where it went in the 2003 book as I don't have that one with me right now.

SamC

Quoting from the 2002 NFHS Rule Book:

<b>"Point of Emphasis

2. Awarded Bases - 3-Foot Lane - When there is a base-on-
balls award, the batter-runner is required to use the 3 -
foot running lane. A walk is treated the same as a batted
ball. When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot
lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with
the fielder tking or receiving a throw to first base,
interference shall be called.

glen

I realize this thread is three weeks old, but I decided to re-read this post after Dakota make a typical derogatory statement on another board ("they (NFHS) have the diamond sports world's dumbest possible interpretation of a running lane violation after a base on balls.")

It seems as though half of this thread was in trying to define the ASA position, and half was NFHS bashing. I think that maybe Cecil was the only one that had it right by saying "its history, folks!"

From a NFHS perspective, I agree that a walked batter (batter-runner) can not be charged with interference prior to reaching 1B. I base that on my 2003 books.

8.2.5 says a batter-runner is out if: "She runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. And 8.2.6 says that: "A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

ASA has the indentical wording, except that "she" is replaced by "batter-runner." Both books say that a batter becomes a batter-runner when a fourth ball is called by the umpire.

NFHS Casebook 8.2.6, covering a slightly different situation, states that "Since no play is made on (batter-runner) at first base, 8.2.5 does not apply.

I believe I can take that statement and apply it to a walked batter-runner when the catcher is throwing the ball to 1B. Because the B-R has been awarded 1B, no play can be made on her until, and if she goes past 1B. (ie., trying to draw a throw and get a runner home from 3B.) Thus the catcher is simply trying to relocate the ball for a future possible play should the batter try to advance. Thus - if no play is being made on the B-R at 1B, 8.2.5 does not apply.

I believe that is the NFHS position in 2003. Does anyone have access to anything (written) that disagrees?

WMB



[Edited by WestMichBlue on Sep 25th, 2003 at 12:01 AM]

All this discussion is because of an interpretation that was posted on the NFHS web site at the beginning of last year, and was also past out in pre-season literature at least in S.C., that stated this official interpretation. The interpretation specifically mentioned the play in question.

Trying to start a flame war with me WMB?Hmmmm. Unlike your baiting of me on that "other" board, I'm not taking the bait this time. Find someone else. Take it to the baseball board. Or even better, McGriffs (if there is anyone left there).