ASA February Clarifications

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

From the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department:

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).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If I were the rules editor, I would refuse to restate what I believe is clearly stated (and/or clearly NOT included).

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".