Throw Hits the On Deck Batter

[The Man In Blue]

Right ... as presented in that play the on-deck batter does not seem to have interfered with either a play or a player, so in all codes “dead ball, runners go back.”

My caveat was that it is not an automatic call all the time ... there is more to consider.

 

[marriard]

Usssa very closely follows nfhs rules, and if they don't specifically cover something they defer to nfhs.

Yeah, I totally missed this section of the USSSA rule book.

That may be because it doesn't exist. Or are we using 'unwritten rules' now?

 

[Comp]

Yeah, I totally missed this section of the USSSA rule book.

That may be because it doesn't exist. Or are we using 'unwritten rules' now?

Everything is not always in the rule book. I don't remember where I have seen it, but at some point in time I have seen a statement from USSSA that anything not specifically covered in their rule book or case plays they defer to NFHS if they do have a ruling or case play. And Im not saying that the NFHS case play fits the situation, but if a photographer who is not suppose to be on the field being hit by a wild throw is not a dead ball, then why in the world would a wild throw hitting the on deck batter who by rule is allowed to be on the field be a dead ball and runners return?

 

[CHSUmp97]

I guess you could argue that the on-deck batter is 'participating team personnel but I think that is a real stretch as well and lacks definition in the rule book. I would argue that a base coach falls under participating.

FWIW, there's this NFHS case play:

3.2.12 SITUATION C:
During the game, B1 is discovered wearing a necklace while warming up in the on-deck circle.
RULING: The necklace shall be removed. The umpire shall issue a warning to the head coach. The next player not properly equipped will result in the player and the head coach being restricted to the dugout/bench for the duration of the game. (3-5-1; 3-6-1)

By NFHS 3-2-12, jewelry cannot be worn by "[p]layers in the game." So NFHS does consider the on-deck batter as a player who is in the game, and that would support the argument that she is "participating team personnel."

 

[The Man In Blue]

Before I continue to go blue in the face ... get it? ...

Comp, are you saying you don’t agree with the rules in the rule book or are you arguing there is no rule? It sounds to me like the latter, but it occurred to me it is probably the former.

 

[marriard]

Everything is not always in the rule book. I don't remember where I have seen it, but at some point in time I have seen a statement from USSSA that anything not specifically covered in their rule book or case plays they defer to NFHS if they do have a ruling or case play. And Im not saying that the NFHS case play fits the situation, but if a photographer who is not suppose to be on the field being hit by a wild throw is not a dead ball, then why in the world would a wild throw hitting the on deck batter who by rule is allowed to be on the field be a dead ball and runners return?

Nothing against what you are saying here, but this is one of the more frustrating things umpiring softball and baseball.

I am expected to make the right ruling on a massively poorly written rule using what is a real stretch to an unrelated case play on a totally different rule from a different rule set based on something that may have been put out as a statement you may have seen in the past.

I seem to run into 3 or 4 of these every year.

And I am not saying that it doesn't happen in the other sports I officiate, but softball and baseball is WAY out there.

 

[Comp]

Before I continue to go blue in the face ... get it? ...

Comp, are you saying you don’t agree with the rules in the rule book or are you arguing there is no rule? It sounds to me like the latter, but it occurred to me it is probably the former.

The heading of the rule you posted is interference, the on deck batter did not interfere with anything so how does any portion of that rule apply in any way?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[CHSUmp97]

Nothing against what you are saying here, but this is one of the more frustrating things umpiring softball and baseball.

I am expected to make the right ruling on a massively poorly written rule using what is a real stretch to an unrelated case play on a totally different rule from a different rule set based on something that may have been put out as a statement you may have seen in the past.

I seem to run into 3 or 4 of these every year.

And I am not saying that it doesn't happen in the other sports I officiate, but softball and baseball is WAY out there.

It is true that not every situation that you could possibly see on a baseball or softball diamond is going to be written down either in a rule book, casebook, or other authoritative interpretation. To expect that, you'll end up having a document with hundreds of pages, with much of it so far out there in the realm of possibility, it would be a waste to even print it.

This situation really doesn't need anything more than an umpire's understanding of who can and cannot be on the field of play, good judgment as to what happened when such a person from the offensive team makes contact with a pitch or thrown ball, and a reasonable understanding of what does and doesn't constitute interference.

We know that base coaches and on-deck batters are allowed on the field. We also know that there is a possibility that they will get hit with a thrown or pitched ball. All that need to be determined is if the base coach or on-deck batter interfered when it happens.

Interference, by rule, requires an offensive team member to do something that "illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder". When an on-deck batter gets hit with a thrown ball, we have to immediately determine if the act, at that moment, impeded, hindered or confused a fielder. If there isn't a fielder anywhere near the on-deck batter, how are you going to say there was interference? You don't say, "Well, because the ball hit the on-deck batter and stayed right next to her instead of traveling 20 feet toward the catcher, the on-deck batter interfered with any chance of that catcher retrieving the ball, looking up to see who might still be far away from a base and making a play on that runner." No, you make a judgment that interference happened at that moment, not what mighta, coulda, shoulda happened.

No, we really don't need a separate rule to address that particular situation. We already have enough rules that allow us to make good judgments here.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Nothing against what you are saying here, but this is one of the more frustrating things umpiring softball and baseball.

I am expected to make the right ruling on a massively poorly written rule using what is a real stretch to an unrelated case play on a totally different rule from a different rule set based on something that may have been put out as a statement you may have seen in the past.

I seem to run into 3 or 4 of these every year.

And I am not saying that it doesn't happen in the other sports I officiate, but softball and baseball is WAY out there.

Going to take this post before I move back into the madness ...

I am having this very argument on another forum, Marriard. It is mostly a baseball umpires’ forum, so they like to quote all kinds of scholarly resources (MiLBUM, BRD, etc.) and other codes saying “that’s not covered in NFHS, so you should use NCAA rules”.

Bull

The first flaw in that logic is assuming ALL umpires know ALL codes. If I only work high school baseball, why on earth would I know rules from NCAA or MLB (OBR)? If your second grader is having problems with math homework, you don’t say “just treat that math problem like trigonometry.” That’s ludicrous.

Same goes here ... you should NEVER apply rules from another code because you think something isn’t covered. The only exception is a “house” or unaffiliated rec league that says “any rules not covered defer to the XYZ Softball rule book.”

If you have a situation that you think is not covered ...

First, make sure it isn’t covered.

Second, make damn sure it isn’t covered.

Third, find other rules in that code that may apply.

Fourth, find other rules in that code that may give guidance (definitions can often be helpful).

Fifth, double-check again to make sure it isn’t covered.

Six, default to Rule 10.2 (NFHS), 14.2(M) (USSSA), 10.2 (USA), or the equivalent in your code: the umpire has the authority to rule on any situation not covered in the rules provided for that code.

 

[The Man In Blue]

^ That said ... back to the insanity ...

What is it that you guys think is not being covered?

Why do you think a rule entitled “On-Deck Batter” does not apply to on-deck batters?

If you want to say “I don’t like that rule” or “I don’t agree with that rule”, then cool. I can dig it.

But you guys are carrying on as if there is no rule that very clearly spells out what happens when a thrown ball hits an on-deck batter. You are talking about applying batter’s interference rules (with the bat), jewelry rules, coaching rules ... Why? There is a very definitive rule in every code.

The wording may be different in different codes, but it couldn’t be much simpler.