HardBallers Softball

I’ve commented on several rules this season, but this last one really takes the cake. In fact, I feel that the umpire interpreted the rules incorrectly.

General “Out of Play” Rule
In a professional ball game, the entire field is circled by a fence. Any ball that is hit outside the fence is considered “out of play”. Depending on where it lands, its either a foul ball or a HR.

Likewise, if a fielder throws a live ball that somehow ends outside the fenced area, (either an overthrow or a ball that is mishandled by the recipient), the ball is considered “out of play”. The penalty for such a mistake is that all base runners are awarded a base. Simple enough, right?

But this ain’t the majors and the cities in this area don’t have the money to enclose each field with a nice fence. So is the case at Daly field where there are no fences to surrounding the field. Instead, markers are used to specify the boundaries of the field. If a ball gets away from a fielder and trickles outside the boundaries, the ball is “out of play”. Seems reasonable enough. If the markers are placed a far distance away from the infield, the only time a ball is “out of play” is if the ball tickles away to the point where the base runner would advance a base anyways.

League’s “Out of Play” Rule
Now comes the screwy part that has gotten me all worked up. According to the umpire at the HBs II final regular season game, when a ball goes out of play, the base runner is awarded not one base, but TWO bases. He claims that is the league’s rule. In addition, the point where two bases are assigned is based on where the base runner was standing at the moment the throw was made. In other words,

If a ball goes out of play, each baserunner advances two base from the moment the ball was thrown.

So, if I was standing between first and second and the ball is over thrown to first, I would be awarded third base. If I happen to reach second before the overthrow, I would be awarded home. Now let’s see how this rule can easily become screwy as witnessed during the HBs II match-up against the “Free Agents”.

Exhibit A
With one out and a runner on second, a fly ball is hit into left field. The fielder catches the ball and throws it in to third. The base runner, meanwhile, bluffs the tag and returns to second. The third baseman, however, mishandles the ball and the ball trickles into the opponent’s dugout and out of play.

You would think that all the base runner would get on this play is third. The ump, however awards him home plate because he was standing between second and third when the throw was made.

I fail to see why this runner should be given a two base advance when he didn’t even make a real attempt to advance to third. Furthermore, why should the fielders be penalized for the fact that there is no wall surrounding the field? Had there been a wall, the ball would have tickled to it. Sure, the third baseman would have to chase after it, allowing the baserunner to easily advance to third, but at least the fielders can concede the advance.

In my book, I would only award the runner home plate had he tagged second and actually tried to take third. If the ball then got away from the third baseman and goes out of play, the runner should be awarded home because not only would the base runner be safe at third, but an alert base runner would have scored anyways.

Exhibit B
A batter hits the ball into left field for what should be an easy double. While approaching the second base, a throw is made to the base to try and hold him up. However, the ball is overthrown and it goes past everyone, going out of play around first.

Some thought the base runner would be awarded home on the play, but the ump awarded him third because the runner was a step or two behind second base when the throw was made. So, had he been a little faster and backtracked to second on the throw, he would have been awarded home.

In my book, I would have awarded the runner third because he was not going to try to advance on the play. But the fact that the enforcement of the rule lies on exactly where the runner was when the throw was made is subject to error.

My recommendation
The rule must be written so that a fence circumferencing the field is assumed. Extra bases should be awarded based on the likelihood that a runner would be able to advance on such plays. Now let’s break things down.

Let’s say a batter hits a double and proceeds to second. A throw is made to third, but the ball gets away from the third baseman. Under my assumptions, the ball, at worse, would just trickle away and stop at a fence. The base runner would be able to take third easily on the play. The baserunner, however, should NOT get home.

Let’s take the same play, except this time the batter tries to stretch the double into a triple. A throw is made to third and the ball gets away from the fielder. Under my assumptions, the ball, at worse, would tickle to the fence. The base runner would go score on the play.

Now, let’s take both of those plays and remove the fence. In both cases, the ball trickles “out of play”. The batter in my first example would only advance to third on the play while the second would be awarded home.

So, what is the key differentiator? In the first example, the play was merely a double. The base runner COULD have extended it to a triple, but did not try. In the second example, the base runner did try. Thus, based on their base running, one runner scores while the other only advances to third.

Now let’s generalize this rule:

If a ball goes “out of bounds”, every base runner is awarded play advancement plus an extra base.

In other words, in the first example the batter netted a double, so he is awarded the double plus an extra base on the botched fielding play. In the second example, the batter was looking for a triple. The fielder could not handle the ball, so the runner would have been safe regardless. Thus, the play is a triple and the extra base sends the runner to home for the score.

Now, let’s reexamine exhibit A and B.

In exhibit A, the play advancement that was attempted was a sacrifice. However, this play was a BLUFF, not an actual play. Had it been a real play, the runner would have been running towards third. Thus using my rule, the runner would only be allowed to advance to third. Not only that, this is what everyone expects. After all, had there been a wall, the best the base runner could have hoped for on the play is third, so why award him home?

In exhibit B, the play advancement was a double. The base runner clearly had no intensions of stretching it to a triple. Thus, he is awarded third base on the overthrow. Had he been extremely gutsy and tried to advance to third while the throw was made, (I’ve seen it happen), he would be awarded home plate. In this case, the play advance was a triple and on the “out of play”, he is awarded home.

So what about the classic example of the ball going out of play on a throw to first? The play advancement was a single. Thus, every baserunner that was on base at that time was trying to advance one base. Because of the overthrow, every base runner gets an extra base.

Conclusion
It should become clear that it is easier and fairer to award an extra base based on what the base runner was currently doing verses where the base runner was at the moment of the throw. After all, it’s a lot simpler, easier to understand, and it does not penalize fielders for fields that lack a fence. It’s also what people expect to see happen on such plays. Not only that, but who on earth is going to remember where they where when the ball was thrown, at least those that can see behind their heads while running the baselines?

Ciao,
Andy

Andy Wolan is a reporter and photographer for BWCS. This story was not subject to the approval of the league or its clubs.