Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.
All the NFHS guys should be use to this type of question. Read it again. Does it not say "knocking the ball loose"?
Loose from where? Do you think F3 may have already caught the ball? If not, there would be no need to mention it. Therefore, it is a dead ball, R2 is declared out, R3 returns to 1B. That's a double play. Even better, a possible appeal may still exist for R1 leaving 3B early.
Don't care about baseball. You want to reference any set of their rules, fine. However, it would be nice if you kept it to yourself. Interjecting them into a softball discussion adds nothing, but consternation to the less-than-seasoned softball umpires.
|
But the phrase, "knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play" clearly implies two things:
1. The action by the runner had a purpose (preventing a double play), and
2. The action by the runner did, in fact, prevent the natural double play that would have resulted as the play unfolded (i.e. R1 took off as soon as the ball was hit into the air). If the ball were CAUGHT then the runner would NOT have been successful in "preventing the double play." So, it was *not* caught.
Yet, I think it is a very poor question because it leaves too many things unclear to the test taker. That is the essence of a bad question - lack of clarity.
A good question should neither be a test in testmanship nor require the test taker to parse words and discern their hidden meaning. It should only test the understanding of the pertinent point.
Secondly, it only seems that references to baseball rules bother YOU. The *fact* of the matter is that softball is a game that has evolved DIRECTLY from baseball. Many (actually *most*) of the rules of softball have come directly from baseball. Certainly, over the years, different softball organizations have morphed their system of rules into a more proprietary structure but, nonetheless, the essence of the rules have been derived from baseball.
So, it's only natural (although perhaps not particularly helpful) to wonder if a seemingly inappropriate ruling would be administered in a similar fashion under another system of rules - baseball being one of them. Already, in this thread, there were comparisons with how this situation would be ruled under ISF. That reference didn't seem to bother you. If somebody wondered how this would be ruled under AFA, or NSA, or USSAA - would that cause anybody any "consternation?" It's a natural form of curiosity and sometimes such comparisons are VERY helpful in revealing an inadequately addressed rule.
I'll give you an example. My daughter's fastpitch team has played in several AFA tournaments in the past few years. We even went to some of their National Tournaments. Our team hadn't had much experience with AFA so I took it upon myself to familiarize myself with their system of rules. To their credit (AFA's), they make their rules readily available for all too see. ASA prefers to keep their system of rules under lock and key. I discovered that the AFA batting-out-of-order rule never clarified whether any additional outs gained on a hit by the improper batter were allowed to stand. I wrote an email to the AFA seeking clarification. Their answer was, "Oops!" Their intent was that such outs would *not* stand and they said that they would have to rewrite that section to make that clear. I wouldn't have even known to ask such a question without first being aware that OTHER system of rules sometimes DO allow you to keep additional outs, ASA being one of them.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 26th, 2006 at 04:45 PM]