Quote:
|
Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?
For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught? |
Quote:
If a pitch is not considered a "play" and F1 strikes out the side on 9 pitches, then 9 pitches aren't "plays" either. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"clarification"
It is interesting that all this from some of our brightest umpires results from something called a "clarification". :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
1) No one is essentially or virtually (preferred term of a fellow umpire) saying anything!! res ipsa loquitor, the thing (rulebook) speaks for itself. Read the exact rule from the rulebook. 2) Don't want nor need ANYTHING from USA Softball that would either be redundant or unsupported by the rule as adopted and written. 3) We have in this discussion a very clear rule, and exactly one clearly defined exception (agreeing with someone else's rule that differs doesn't muddy this; it is someone else's rule, not THIS rule). The one stated exception is the pitcher delivering the pitch. Personally, I conclude that exception neither includes the catcher catching (or NOT catching) the pitch anymore than it excludes the third baseman that may catch a foul fly ball. I could be wrong; but until a different rule is passed, any official interpretation that THEN includes the catcher is unsupported. 4) Many/most consider the NCAA rulebook repetitive, redundant, overstated, by attempting to restate every permutation of third world "what if" scenarios, instead of allowing the thought process to make reasonable conclusions. And several of their restatements conflict with the original rule, creating even MORE inconsistencies. Why do you wish that on any other rulebook, rather than accept what IS, as well as what IS NOT stated? If I were the rules editor, I would refuse to restate what I believe is clearly stated (and/or clearly NOT included). |
Quote:
Quote:
Edit for Steve -- I'm tired, and your last post was both eloquently verbose and firmly worded. My brain isn't compatible with your post right now. To be clear: You agree with me then, under ASA/USA, that a catcher catching (or not) a third-strike pitch for a putout is making a play? (Also, for what it's worth, I like the NCAA rulebook "in principle" as there are written rules for some of these third-world plays that come up...what I don't like is the "interpretations" that conflict with other rules, as you pointed out.) |
Quote:
Which is how the old rule book (not that long ago) used to be written. And then everyone thought they figured a way around a rule based on personal presumption. And that includes coaches insist on their own interpretations based upon when isn't written must be a fact or the book would have stated otherwise. A perfect example is the "safe" signal when the umpire doesn't rule INT. It is real simple. If the umpire does not kill the play, in his/her judgment there was no INT. But no, the coach needs a positive affirmation of a negative to be able to understand the "no call". |
Quote:
If a pitch passes the batter, bounds off the catcher or the backstop, and then hits the batter still standing in the batter's box, is that HBP? Why not? The only logical answer I can consider is ........... because it is no longer considered a pitch at that point; the pitch ended when it passed the batter and is caught (or not) by the catcher. We extend that "pitch" if the batter was swinging in a real effort to hit the ball and is obstructed by the catcher in that effort; but if that doesn't apply, the pitch ended. If the sole exception to the definition "PLAY" is that the pitch itself is not a play, then when the pitch ends .......?? Well, ipso facto, that's a play. (Don't you just love the Latin??) If there is to be any other conclusion or exception, then it would have been stated by the 84th year of ASA/USA Softball. Frankly, I also prefer the NCAA rule here, as long as we are entitled to a preference; if the unreported/illegal/inaccurate sub participated (and the pitcher obviously did participate in throwing a pitch), it should have a consequence, IMO. |
Except according to a recent USA case play or clarification it is still a pitched ball until it is controlled by the catcher.
Not too long ago there was a play presented about a pitched ball that gets away from the catcher and knocked up the baseline. As the catcher is attempting to retrieve it, they knock the ball into the dugout. According to the ruling it is not treated the same as a thrown ball, it is still a pitched ball and would only be a 1 base award from the time of the pitch. |
Quote:
I believe we can (and must) differentiate between a ball that was pitched and then left the field of play, a ball that was pitched and subsequently mishandled (muffed would be the equivalent football term, if that helps) without any intent beyond an effort to retrieve and left the field of play, and a ball that was pitched, controlled, and then control was lost (fumbled would be the equivalent football term) with the ball leaving the field of play. I don't see that the the second or last extended the life of the "pitch"; just that any subsequent award may be affected by the actions after the pitch was no longer a pitch, if that has bearing on the causation of the dead ball. Referring to football, as it were. When a punt is muffed, the punt still ended when muffed; but unless recovered by the kicking team in bounds, the ball is placed as if the punt hadn't ended!! That doesn't extend the punt, it just describes the enforcement. When the punt is caught by the receiving team, and THEN fumbled, the punt still ended when caught, and subsequent action may have different results than the muff. Maybe you aren't a football guy; and I'm more than a decade out of officiating that game, so my verbiage and example may be off, flying by the seat of my pants. But my point is the same. There are instances where subsequent action may result the same as if a pitched ball that isn't (anymore) were still a pitch; but that only directs the subsequent enforcement, doesn't make it still a pitch, just tells you to treat it as if it were still a pitch. |
IMO which I believe is the same as ASA/USA softball
A pitch is not a play. It is an act which initiates action on the field. An attempt to retire a runner or batter-runner by any defender is a play. |
Definition of muff (BTW, first defined as a noun)
transitive verb 1 : to handle awkwardly 2 : to fail to hold (a ball) when attempting a catch intransitive verb 1 : to act or do something stupidly or clumsily 2 : to muff a ball — compare fumble --------------------------------------------------------- Definition of fumble intransitive verb 1 a : to grope for or handle something clumsily or aimlessly b : to make awkward attempts to do or find something <fumbled in his pocket for a coin> c : to search by trial and error d : blunder 2 : to feel one's way or move awkwardly 3 a : to drop or juggle or fail to play cleanly a grounder b : to lose hold of a football while handling or running with it transitive verb 1 : to bring about by clumsy manipulation 2 a : to feel or handle clumsily b : to deal with in a blundering way : bungle 3 : to make (one's way) in a clumsy manner 4 a : misplay <fumble a grounder> b : to lose hold of (a football) while handling or running |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28pm. |