Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Now, the most likely reason that softball insists on the ball being CAUGHT is probably to create a definitive point alleviating some of the umpire's judgment as to what was an intentional drop and what wasn't.
If you allowed every umpire to make their calls based on what they determined to be fair, there would be no consistency to the manner in which a game is called. It's already bad enough that the umpire is going to determine what was a CAUGHT ball without the envocation of personal opinions. It is not a stretch AT ALL to believe that there would be umpires seeing what they considered a routing humpback ball and automatically ruling the BR out regardless of how the defender(s) handled the batted ball. I know it is not a stretch because I have witnessed this attitude more than a few times and not just at a local level.
Thanks,
[/B]
|
********
Let's face it, softball wouldn't even exist it weren't for baseball.
There are just too many things in the softball rulebook that look conspicuously like baseball's rulebook to naively believe that the creators weren't referencing it. Of course they were!
I have a hard time believing that the creators of ASA's 8-2-J weren't looking at OBR's 6.05(l) when it was written.
There can be no question what the intent of this rule is. It fills a hole in the Infield Fly rule, where there are situations that are *not* covered by the Infield Fly rule, whereby the defense can *still* benefit by purposely misplaying a batted ball ... like a dropped line drive or bunt. Or, when there are situations that do *not* involve runners at both 1st and 2nd. The intent is to prevent forced runners from being unfairly put in jeopardy.
A soft liner that is hit directly toward a fielder who simply allows the ball to hit his glove and fall directly to the ground (where there can be no reasonable claim that the ball was caught), and then picks it up to complete a double or triple play would be a gross injustice to the runners.
Would you really allow such a thing?
Whichever interpretation you prefer, you can *never* escape the umpire's requirement to judge the fielder's intent. Does it really matter whether you are trying to figure out whether it was intentionally dropped after caught, or, intentionally not caught?
I have been bouncing this off the baseball guys, and they are of the opinion, "You'll know when to invoke this rule when you see it. The fielder will do something intentional and the runners will suddenly be put at risk. It'll just look wrong. Raise your hands and KILL THE PLAY. Whether the fielder caught it and dropped it or whether he just purposely failed to make a catch is irrelevent. He dropped it on purpose and now the runners are in jeopardy. Don't let it happen."
In any case - I leave room for the possibility that you are RIGHT and that the Powers-That-Be in softball thought that it would be kind of "neat" if a fielder would purposely not catch a catchable ball and pull off a double or triple play. If so, that's bizarre.
I'm waiting for Merle Butler's response to this. I'm not claiming I know the official interpreation ... you may be right ... I'm just claiming that if the official interpretation is as you say ... IT'S SENSELESS by any standard.