USA Softball May Rule Clarifications
 

May's rule clarifications are here

Could have an interesting discussion about mechanics in those videos.

USA Softball screwed up the website for its plays and clarifications, I see. They used to have links for a PDF with a detailed listing of plays, and one for clarifications, all by topic and date. So if someone wanted to find case plays involving the Infield Fly Rule, they could search all references for "Infield Fly" under the Case Plays index, and go to those references by month/year of their publishing.

Now, they removed those links, and rearranged the documents using dropdown menus. So if you want to find the case plays on "Infield Fly", you have to open each webpage and search for them.

I hope they just temporarily removed the links for those indexes because they needed to be updated with the newest set of case plays and clarifications. Otherwise, they've just made it a lot more inefficient and cumbersome to find what you're looking for.

Yeah, in Video 3, I noticed right away that U1 was set up almost at the third to second base line extended, almost the way U3 would set up with a runner at first base. He should be further to his left toward F4, who is already playing close to first base. He would've made a long-distance call at first if the ball hadn't hit the BR in the arm.

As for Video 2, U3 did allow the BR to get ahead of him and he ended up trailing the BR into third.

Is that what you were referring to? Or is there something else you saw?

vid 3 is another example of a play discussed in the past here, that I could never sell to my colleagues; that a runner's feet could both be in the running lane, yet part of her body (in this case the shoulder) could be extended out and be liable for interference ...

It's treated differently under different rule sets. NCAA and NFHS only requires that the BR have both feet inside the runner's lane. USA, however, wants the BR's entire body to be in the lane. Just another one of those simple rules that folks want to over-complicate. :rolleyes:

I think that USA is the only one with this interpretation. At least, it's the only one I'm aware of.

And, yes, the deletion of the index stinks! I believe that it was a fairly new addition to that webpage- this is the first year that I recall seeing it. It actually made it kind of easy to find things. Certainly more easy that reading through every single page from the past eleven years!

Actually, I believe USA is the one who has it right. The feet do not cause the INT, but body parts outside the lane

Looks like the indexes are back.

Download them to your computer and you'll have them in the event they go away again.

Yes. Those plus.

Video1: U3 probably moving as the play is developing.
Video2: Good job by U1 getting down the line but moving when the ball hits the fielder's glove. U3 is way behind. Death stare at the base when the ball gets away.
Video3: As you stated for U1. U1 is 45 feet away, or more, from the play at first base.

In video 1 I can't tell from the angle if the runner got back to the bag before F5s leg hits her foot. But supposing her foot is in contact with the bag there. Is this still obstruction? I'm thinking no since the runner was able to do exactly what she wanted (hold the bag). [I'm ignoring for the purpose of discussion that she was dislodged from the bag by a fielder with the ball]

Yes, it is