The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 12:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 350
Auburn vs Georgia 4/2/17

Link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVadxyJAaDQ

Forward to bottom of 4th @ 1:24

Tidwell has the call as U3. I think she's been to WCWS before. I believe I would have an out, but intrigued by her no call....of anything. Think you have to have Int or Obs.

Maybe her thought was that it didn't interfere with the SS's ability to reasonably make a play and she gave up on the play after contact?

Opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 01:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by derwil View Post
Link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVadxyJAaDQ

Forward to bottom of 4th @ 1:24

Tidwell has the call as U3. I think she's been to WCWS before. I believe I would have an out, but intrigued by her no call....of anything. Think you have to have Int or Obs.

Maybe her thought was that it didn't interfere with the SS's ability to reasonably make a play and she gave up on the play after contact?

Opinions?
I don't do NCAA, so maybe they have something there that makes a difference. But speaking other codes, obstruction is off the table, this is the initial play on the ball. So you have interference or you have nothing. I don't see the runner do anything. The only reason there's any contact at all is the fielder reaching out to find the runner and that didn't keep her from fielding the ball at all.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 02:16pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
It's entirely possible, considering the height of that ball, that BR is at or very close to first, and the runner didn't interfere with a play anywhere, in the umpire's judgement. I wish we could see where BR was.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 02:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 350
The runner going to first is either there or almost there. She's leading the SEC in batting @ .500. Think there is a play at third, however, with the runner that she hits.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
I think this rule is most appropriate here:

Quote:
12.19.2 Interference by Runners
12.19.2.1.4 Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so.

Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertent contact and neither interference nor obstruction.
The emphasis is how it appears in the rule book.

IMO, the drawn in infield and moving back towards the ball and the runner moving towards the outfield as the ball is being played is "appropriate to the situation". I think no call is correct.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 03:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:

I think this rule is most appropriate here:

Quote:
12.19.2 Interference by Runners
12.19.2.1.4 Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so.

Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertent contact and neither interference nor obstruction.
The emphasis is how it appears in the rule book.

IMO, the drawn in infield and moving back towards the ball and the runner moving towards the outfield as the ball is being played is "appropriate to the situation". I think no call is correct.
What?!?!? Nothing in that rule about "making a throw"?

I'm really disappointed in the ESPN announcers quoting something "from the rule book" that is inaccurate......

I agree with BS....I see a big fat nothing on this play...
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 04, 2017, 07:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Yep, let me pile on here. There was no play with which to INT. The SS simply stopped playing and if she missed the opportunity to make an out, it was of her own doing.

"BTW, coach, if I saw INT, I would have called INT. The fact that I did not makes my position quite obvious, don't you think?"

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 12:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Marshall, MI
Posts: 375
I believe that the call of no interference is the correct call. NCAA allows the umpire to signal safe on play that are possible OBS or INT, I think it this would have been the ideal situation to use that signal.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 07:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 647
So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?
In an effort to get a feel for the runner's position, F6 throws her hand back (more aggressively than seen here), all in the same motion as gloving the batted ball.
And to remove any gray area as to her throwing intentions, say F6 does make the (late) throw to F3.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 07:38am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,367
That discussion with Coach Myers took way too long. He certainly deserves to be heard, but for crying out loud, he had to have been told after the first umpire get-together, and then after talking with Jana at third, of the reason for a No Call. End it there, coach.

As for the call, I might've gone the other way and rule interference. My rationale: this wasn't a situation where the runner had to advance (no force), and the ball was hit to the left side. Runners from an early age are told to hold and let that ball go through before trying to advance to third on a ball in front of them. If she was forced to advance, I might go with a No Call in that her action was "appropriate to the situation". Without needing to advance, she has no business causing contact with the fielder.

But, of course, that's the benefit of watching the play over and over, and being able to think about it. In real time, I certainly have no issue with the No Call since it did look like the runner tried to avoid contact with the shortstop, and once the shortstop fielded the ball, she looked toward first base initially, where there was no play possibility.

It all boils down to judgment.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 08:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?
No
Quote:
In an effort to get a feel for the runner's position, F6 throws her hand back (more aggressively than seen here), all in the same motion as gloving the batted ball.
And to remove any gray area as to her throwing intentions, say F6 does make the (late) throw to F3.
When there was no possibility to get an out, so there is no play with which to interfere.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
As for the call, I might've gone the other way and rule interference. My rationale: this wasn't a situation where the runner had to advance (no force), and the ball was hit to the left side. Runners from an early age are told to hold and let that ball go through before trying to advance to third on a ball in front of them. If she was forced to advance, I might go with a No Call in that her action was "appropriate to the situation". Without needing to advance, she has no business causing contact with the fielder.
I don't think I can agree with strategy or technique affecting the rule.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 09:18am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?
No one said that. It is not possible for F6 to be called for OBS in her INITIAL attempt to field the ball.

We don't have to do the whole step and a reach argument here. I only put INITIAL to head off that tangent.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 09:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 647
Understood... just wondered if it was possible, with a simultaneous action (fielding the ball, and pushing a runner that she wasn't attempting to put out) to get an OBS. I see that it is not.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 05, 2017, 02:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
I guess 24" violations are ignored in the SEC.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auburn vs Ole Miss Int or Obs. vcblue Softball 9 Mon Apr 26, 2010 01:22pm
Tenn/Auburn Adam Basketball 2 Sat Mar 14, 2009 03:54pm
LSU/Auburn DesertZebra Football 4 Sun Sep 21, 2008 02:02pm
Nebraska vs. Auburn shave-tail Football 2 Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:44am
Auburn-Georgia fumble largeone59 Football 5 Sun Nov 20, 2005 06:41am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1