ASA Interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is how my conversation would differ.

Well, you can bullshit as much as you like, but it doesn't become a good umpire. And the OP clearly states "knocked" down, so that is a bit more than contacted.

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation."

What grey area? Rule seem quite clear and straight forward. Another situation where umpires are going out of their way to protect a player who hasn't earned it.

Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.

[jmkupka]

Envisioning this at game speed, I have INT, R3 out, all runners back, BR on 1st.

The fact that F4 didn't move forward or backward in the fielding of the ball leads me to believe R3 was going to plow into her whether she fielded it cleanly or not.

So I have a flagrant act, and an EJ.

(Cue the Jeopardy music)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Envisioning this at game speed, I have INT, R3 out, all runners back, BR on 1st.

The fact that F4 didn't move forward or backward in the fielding of the ball leads me to believe R3 was going to plow into her whether she fielded it cleanly or not.

So I have a flagrant act, and an EJ.

(Cue the Jeopardy music)

That is what I presented. I made a point of stating that the fielder did not move solely for the purpose of eliminating the "what iffing" this to death. Apparently, more credit was given than due.

However, the real point was to get someone to look at the damn rule which has been changed to include the runner closest to home being ruled out. I don't know whether this change was an error in compilation or someone just thought it was a better idea to rule out another runner. I'm willing to bet that someone is just assuming the runner causing the collision has been retired prior to it which as demonstrated in this thread is not necessarily true.

[jmkupka]

And I would have seen that, had the rulebook PDF on my work computer been newer than 2009.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...However, the real point was to get someone to look at the damn rule which has been changed to include the runner closest to home being ruled out. I don't know whether this change was an error in compilation or someone just thought it was a better idea to rule out another runner. I'm willing to bet that someone is just assuming the runner causing the collision has been retired prior to it which as demonstrated in this thread is not necessarily true.

Aha! I knew there had to be something behind you posting that situation!

Unfortunately, I don't have a 2015 book, only a 2014, so your repeated insistence on reading the rule left me a bit mystified.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Aha! I knew there had to be something behind you posting that situation!

Unfortunately, I don't have a 2015 book, only a 2014, so your repeated insistence on reading the rule left me a bit mystified.

You mean you didn't rush out and buy the app for your phone?

P.S., While I understand they want to sell books and apps, a non-published change can throw a lot of people off. Then again, maybe this was a watermark to see who was copying it

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You mean you didn't rush out and buy the app for your phone? ...

Heh! No.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, you can bullshit as much as you like, but it doesn't become a good umpire. And the OP clearly states "knocked" down, so that is a bit more than contacted.

I truly don't appreciate you calling my explanation of what I've been told the rule is meant to cover, "Bullshit". That's beneath you.

Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.

Not one of us? Didn't you just quote me discussing that rule? Didn't I mention that particular rule very early in this conversation? Didn't I invite you, specifically, to explain to us why you would apply that specific rule to this case?

What's with the belligerence on this thread, sir?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

...you calling... "Bullshit". That's beneath you....

Having participated in a good many back-and-forth (ahem) discussions with Mike over the years, I think I can safely say you are not being fair to Mike here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I truly don't appreciate you calling my explanation of what I've been told the rule is meant to cover, "Bullshit". That's beneath you.

I didn't. I was referring to your alteration of the discussion.

Not one of us? Didn't you just quote me discussing that rule? Didn't I mention that particular rule very early in this conversation? Didn't I invite you, specifically, to explain to us why you would apply that specific rule to this case?

What's with the belligerence on this thread, sir?

I don't like wasting teaching moments. The rule was changed and as much as 8.7.Q has been mentioned on other threads on this and other boards, not once have I seen this change mentioned. So I decided to push a few buttons to get a conversation about it going. I went out of my way to lock the scenario so tight there was no room for multiple conclusions. Yet, there were and achieved by basically ignoring the parameters of the play to suit a predetermined response.

It is a frustration of many in clinics, schools and social media outlets. How can anyone know what is or is not when there is so much static and people looking for loopholes in a rule that the original question is contorted almost to the point of obliteration?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I didn't. I was referring to your alteration of the discussion.



I don't like wasting teaching moments. The rule was changed and as much as 8.7.Q has been mentioned on other threads on this and other boards, not once have I seen this change mentioned. So I decided to push a few buttons to get a conversation about it going. I went out of my way to lock the scenario so tight there was no room for multiple conclusions. Yet, there were and achieved by basically ignoring the parameters of the play to suit a predetermined response.

It is a frustration of many in clinics, schools and social media outlets. How can anyone know what is or is not when there is so much static and people looking for loopholes in a rule that the original question is contorted almost to the point of obliteration?

For the record, I wasn't looking for a loophole to allow the runner to be free of any interference call here. He/she needs to be ruled out, and I was looking for something to support it.

As for 8-7-Q, I did want to use that, but I always believed (perhaps wrongly) that this specific rule was meant to deal with the situation that RS#13 expands upon, and that's when the fielder is waiting to make a tag. That's why I was looking for some alternative involving a deflected ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

For the record, I wasn't looking for a loophole to allow the runner to be free of any interference call here. He/she needs to be ruled out, and I was looking for something to support it.

As for 8-7-Q, I did want to use that, but I always believed (perhaps wrongly) that this specific rule was meant to deal with the situation that RS#13 expands upon, and that's when the fielder is waiting to make a tag. That's why I was looking for some alternative involving a deflected ball.

Manny, that is the point. The rule DOES support it.

AFA the effect, since I'm being told the app version does not include this change, I would have to agree with others that this is an editorial error. That being the case, it has been two months since the first rules clarification for 2015 has been published. By this time last year, there were already four published and I'm sort of surprised it has not been addressed by now