Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 62 anonymousDiscussion: ball tipped over fence with no bome runs left, bases loaded, playing rules were walks after no HR Left. what should happen.
| Posted | Discussion |
| May 27, 2015 tall_thunder Men's 50 82 posts | ball tipped over fence with no bome runs left, bases loaded, playing rules were walks after no HR Left. what should happen. In a tournament where the rules were, 3 Hr, walks after, there was bases loaded, one out. The batter hit a fly ball where the outfielder tipped the ball over the fence. The HR rule is, hit and sit, runners don't have to tag bases. Does the rule change on a 4 base error call. Umpire called runners out for not rounding the bases. We scored 0 runs. I have not found this covered in any senior rule book. Anyone have a written rule that covers this. |
| May 27, 2015 dug8 Men's 55 25 posts | Our team had the exact scenario happen 10+ yrs ago in NSA and it was handled the same way as you describe it. I'm not sure about Senior Softball, but that is the correct call for NSA and most likely ASA and USSSA. |
| May 27, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | In SSUSA sanctioned events, a four-base-award (it's not a four-base-error), per Rulebook §8.4(7) on page 46, is treated EXACTLY as a Home Run, EXCEPT that it does NOT count in the team's HR total for the game ... Accordingly, if the game was governed by SSUSA rules, the call in your game SHOULD have been: No HR charged to team's total; No out(s) recorded; Batter and all three base runners may return directly to the dugout without penalty under the hit-and-sit option; and Four (4) runs should have been recorded, up to a total of five for the ½-inning at bat, if more than one run had already been scored ... If it was during an "open inning", all four runs would be recorded ... Hope this helps! |
| May 27, 2015 stick8 1991 posts | USSSA changed in 2013 to hit and sit for a ball tipped over the fence. |
| May 29, 2015 Labamba32 6 posts | Ok fellas I spend some time thinking about this and reviewing the book and have come up with the following. In reviewing rule 8.4(7) on page 46 I saw the following: "8.4(7) FOUR-BASE AWARD Any fair ball touched by a player on either side of the fence that clears or has cleared the fence in fair territory before touching the ground will be a "four-base award," and will not be included in the total over-the-fence home run count." I do not see any reference to its being treated "exactly" as a home run (as stated by SSUSA Staff above). Unless the reference to it being treated "exactly" like a home run is elsewhere in the rule book, all I'm seeing in the verbiage of this rule is that it is a 4 base award and therefore not a HR. Thus, I'm not convinced that any "hit and sit" privileges would apply to the batter or the base runners as there is nothing saying that it should be treated as a home run. Taking this into consideration one would need to look at the rules surrounding advancement under an award situation to determine what is required of the batter and runners. I wasn't able to find anything specifically speaking to advancement under an award situation, but did find in section 8 of the rule book the following: "8.1 TOUCHING BASES IN ORDER The base runner must touch bases 1st, 2nd, 3rd and cross the scoring line or touch the scoring plate in that order. " As I read it this means that unless otherwise amended in the rule book this applies to all situations. An example of an amendment is as follows: "NOTE: For §8.4(2) through §8.4(5), the home run batter may return directly to the dugout and all other runners may return directly to the dugout. EFFECT: The concept known as hit and sit is permitted in SSUSA sanctioned events." However as previously discussed this does not apply to this situation because there is no verbiage in 8.4(7) that the award should be treated as a home run. So with out finding any other amendment that allows for runners not to touch the bases in order in this situation I am forced to conclude that the call on the field was properly made. Has anyone else found anything that would allow for the runners to be exempt from the parameters set fourth in 8.1? I was able to find 8.1(G) which reads as follows: "G. When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base. However, when a dead ball occurs, a runner may return to a missed base or a base he left illegally, if he is required to by the umpire in the awarding or determination of bases. The runner is not liable to be put out for missing a base beyond the base he is required to by the umpire in the awarding or determination of the bases. The runner is not liable to be put out for missing a base beyond the base he is required to return to." (Side note - maybe a typo in the rule book as the last two sentences in section 8.1(G) seem to be saying the same thing?) Back to the subject of this post, section G as I read it is saying that a runner who starts the play on first but misses second base and ends up on third before a dead ball and 1 base is awarded is allowed to return to 2nd with out the liability of being put out because the umpire has awarded the runner that base. Subsequently, if the runner had missed 3rd as well they would not be subject to any appeal on missing third because that is beyond the base that was awarded. None of that seems to be the case in this situation because no runners were placed back to bases via the award. So still I'm not able to find anything that would override the requirement of the runners to touch the bases in order as defined in 8.1. Anyone see anything else in the book that would allow for the runners to not have to touch the bases in order? |
| May 29, 2015 17Black Men's 60 414 posts | This just happened to us in Indianapolis last month. We were over our home run limit of (6) and outfielder from the other team knocked a fly ball that was over his head, over the fence, & we had a couple runners on base. We did have everybody run around all the bases, (and the ump after we did it said we were correct) Ump called it a four base error?? However, in the sake of speeding up play, that seemed "odd" as it should be the hit and sit rule as SSUSA Staff mentions above. Nobody was going to hop the fence and throw the ball back in, so just score the runners and sit in my opinion? We played it safe and ran it out. |
| May 29, 2015 JT25 Men's 50 54 posts | I think we should go back to running out Homeruns....what is this golf...hit a tee shot and go back to your golf clubs. PATHETIC....hurry up rule might save 2 mintues a game...WOW |
| May 29, 2015 Labamba32 6 posts | I agree with 17Black that the runners should be allowed to just walk off the field, however that's not allowed for in the current rules. Furthermore, if it was allowed for runners to simply walk off on 4 base awards it should also be allowed for runners to go directly to the base they are awarded for any award. Example being guy hits a one hopper over the fence with a runner on second, the runner on second shouldn't have to touch 3rd and cross the scoring line nor should the batter have to touch first before going to second. However that's not currently in the rules. Regardless as long as it consistent with all awards I think it would cut down on any confusion. So I'd be ok with JT25's suggestion as well as long as it was applied consistently. Also to back up SSUSA Staff lets make it very clear there is no such thing as a "4 base error". Yes the ball bouncing off the guys glove when he should have caught it might be considered an error in the common lore of the game, but no where in the book will you find any use of the word error in regards to a fielders failed attempt on a routine play. Umpires may award bases as a result of play (regardless of the existence of a fielding error or not). Therefore the proper term here is a 4 base award as the umpire is awarding the bases in their judgement not based on the fact that a fielding error was made. |
| June 1, 2015 B94 Men's 50 138 posts | I'm not sure if it were the case in this scenario, but the part of this rule that's always annoyed me is that at times it seems to punish an OF for trying to make a HR stealing catch. I know it's very tough on some plays for an umpire to be 100% sure that if left untouched the ball would have left the park but if it's a "no doubt" HR and a fielder attempts to make a catch why should he be punished if he makes contact with the ball? That should be a HR. In order to be a four base award it should be on a play where in the umpire's discretion the ball may not have left the park if it went untouched. Reaching over the fence to pull one back should not be a 4 base award in my opinion. Give the fielder some credit for making an attempt to go get it! Deflecting the ball over the fence is a different story all together. Just my $.02... |
| June 1, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | The rationale for our previous response is this: The batted ball cleared the fence in fair territory before touching the ground ... Just like a home run EXCEPT for being touched/tipped by the defensive player ... Our interpretation is that it should be treated exactly like a home run EXCEPT for not adding to the team's HR count ... SSUSA was the last major association to adopt "hit and sit", to save on needless running and to (nominally) speed up the game in a dead ball situation ... The umpire in the stated fact pattern above was "looking for outs" where none were ... There will likely be a Rules Committee agenda item this winter to clarify the obvious in Rulebook §8.4(7) ... In the interim, "hit and sit" is the proper application in a four-base-award scenario ... |
| June 1, 2015 paul0784 Men's 60 218 posts | Wouldn't this have been safe to have all runners run the bases till the umpire said stop? |
| June 1, 2015 neck10 714 posts | should kno the rule before you start the game!! |
| June 1, 2015 E6 in AZ Men's 50 91 posts | Neck, Have some class. Player had a question and asked. Don't dog him for reaching out. |
| June 2, 2015 neck10 714 posts | Im just saying you should kno the rules what if the outfielder hit's the ball with his glove ball shoot's straight up if you don't kno you can take off as soon as he touches it you could not score maybe even get put out I read the rule book once twice a week not the whole book but part of it you need to stay up on the rule's is all I was saying not doging anyone.as for runner's touching a base no matter how the ball goe's over the fence the play is over. |
| June 3, 2015 Labamba32 6 posts | SSUSA Staff - I guess I'm still unsure of your interpretation for treating it exactly as a home run? I understand the part about it not counting against the team's home run total, that is clearly stated in the rule. However, other than that I think its a bit of a stretch to ask umpires and/or players to read the rule as stated in the book (see my above post for the exact verbiage) and come up with the conclusion that its to be treated like a home run in every way other than counting toward the limit. I have consulted with several umpires on this and none so far has come up with that conclusion. I'd like to hear from others on this topic to see if they would come up with the same interpretation? Thus far on the board I haven't seen any posts that speak specifically to the rule as written (other than from myself and SSUSA Staff). Most of the other posts are speaking from experience or more philosophical as to what they think the rule should be, which is all great discussion but ultimately we are bound by the letter of the law in the book and I'm sorry I just don't see anything in the book that would lead me to conclude the same as your thought. I will say that the rule does not indicate either way what the treatment should be, but I feel its a bigger leap to conclude that its a HR treatment (which is a total departure from other award situations) than to apply the normal award rules. That's how I've based my conclusion (supported by the written rules not based on assumptions and interpretations). I do think this would be a great item for the Rules Committee to discuss in the winter meetings. At a minimum I'd think some clarity surrounding the treatment of this situation would be advisable. Again just my two cents. |
| June 3, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | CLARIFICATION In any four-base-award situation, "hit and sit" for the batter and any base runner on base at the time is the proper rule interpretation. |
| June 3, 2015 Labamba32 6 posts | What is your interpretation based on? I haven't seen one bit of evidence (presented by you or anyone else) that is based on anything that is written in the book. I can understand that what you call an interpretation might have been the intent of the rule when originally written, but it doesn't say that anywhere. It only exists in the minds of those who were present when the rule was discussed and written. To anyone else who is simply reading the book its unclear as to what the treatment would be. At least earlier I laid out my logic and backed it up with the sections of the book that I used to arrive at my conclusion. Please present us with some evidence from the book as to why you have arrived at your "interpretation". Simply stating what your thought is doesn't do anyone (player or umpire) that hasn't read this thread any good. Say this situation comes up in a game next week. Is the umpire supposed to reference this thread on the message board as their basis for not granting an appeal? With out evidence (that should be present in the agreed upon source - the rule book) the anyone can point to its just your opinion not an interpretation. |
| June 3, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | Labamba32 ... Our interpretation is based upon the totality of the Rules Committee discussions (and subsequent vote) when SSUSA became the last of the major associations to adopt "hit and sit"... The sense of the Committee was that a four-base-award is treated like a Home Run for scoring purposes except for not adding to the team's HR count, and the (unanimous) sense of the Committee was that the batter and the base runners should be treated identically as in the HR scenario ... Thus, "hit and sit" is the proper application ... Picking and choosing from other rulebook sections that are not on point does not prove the converse to our interpretation ... We will likely make an (unnecessary) official amendment at the convention sessions this year to more clearly spell this out for you, and it will not be the first time ... We actually made a rule amendment last year to clarity that the mandatory face mask rule required a pitcher to actually wear it to protect his face! ... Two players in the prior year asserted they were in compliance with the "wear a face mask rule" because one was wearing it to protect the back of his head and the other was wearing it to protect the elbow of his glove arm ... Your argument is along the same lines ... It's "hit and sit" in any dead ball four-base-award scenario ... To quote William Shakespeare, this is "...Much ado about nothing..." |
| June 3, 2015 Labamba32 6 posts | SSUSA Staff - You are making my point for me with your statement that "the interpretation is based on the Rules Committee discussions". The key in your statement is it was based on the discussions of those that were present at the committee. To the 99% of us involved with the game who were not present for those discussions we are left with the written word of the book. And once again you have failed to provide any evidence that is provided in the book. I ask you again, if this situation comes up next week in a game is the umpire supposed to use this conversation thread as a reference to justify their call? What about those umpires who haven't read this thread and only have the book? Are you saying that they are expected to have the ability to omnisciently derive the same interpretation that you have presented? If a protest arose from this situation you are saying that you'd explain to the parties involved that they needed to be present at the rules committee to hear the discussion to under stand the intent? Isn't the point of the book to provide all involved in the game a solid basis for determining the rule treatment of all plays? I haven't picked and chosen certain parts of the book to my advantage in this dispute. I looked at the section that you referenced and didn't find anything that stated your conclusion. So I then went to the next applicable area of the book which is where I based my conclusion. I do not claim to know everything in the book and therefore have asked you to provide something FROM THE BOOK (not your discussions that I wasn't privy to) to support your conclusion. I would easily accept this if you could produce something other than it was discussed at the rules committee. Yet you can not, so I'm starting to think that there is nothing to point to. If there isn't there isn't. I don't think anyone is blaming anyone here, its just a loop hole that needs to be fixed. I think we all have the same goal of providing the fairest and clearest rules possible to ensure that the playing field is equal for all involved. As for your analogy to the face mask rule, I'd argue that the position of the mask on a player's body or face is subject to a person's judgement of what they need protected. In that instance an umpire could assert their judgement that a mask being worn on a elbow does not protect the face. While I would agree that the letter of the law there didn't specifically call out where the make was to be worn, the judgement of the umpire would be supreme. Here its not a judgement call. Once the umpire has awarded the bases its simple either there is a rule that bases need to be touched in order or there isn't. I don't see how judgement could apply to that black or white issue. I doubt that Tall Thunder (who started this thread) or the rest of his team would feel this is "much ado about nothing" if they had lost their game because of an un-written interpretation. I doubt that an umpire or tournament director who's getting yelled at for something like this would feel its "much ado about nothing", especially since they are given nothing in the book to support this interpretation. Overall, I happen to agree with your thought that it should be treated as a hit and sit. All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the book currently that allows for that. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that the amendment is unnecessary. If SSUSA wants the treatment to be hit and sit they should specifically assert to that. They felt it necessary to include the specificity in the rule book regarding a normal home run being allowed to hit and sit why should an award be different? ASA addresses it specifically (see below for ASA rule), why shouldn't senior softball as well? ASA Rule 8 Section 3 Sub Section I - "Awarded bases must be touched in legal order. EXCEPTION: All adult slow pitch. On any fair batted ball hit over the fence for a home run or on a four base award, the batter and all runners are credited with a run. The batter and any runners on base are not required to run the bases. This eliminates any appeal play on the runners." |
