The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu View Post
Runners return at time of INT.
Correct. I mistyped. I also may have misread the play as described, so there's that too. I didn't think this was INT by a retired runner on the first pass, since it sounds like the fielder was in the process of making an initial play on the ball (attempting to retire the BR on the popup) when the INT occurred.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)

Last edited by teebob21; Sat May 19, 2018 at 03:28pm.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 20, 2018, 08:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue View Post
I agree with you that only because the runner chose to advance after the collision, was the collision interference. If the runner had stayed put, no interference. I didn't like having to make that call, but I think my partner was right, by the book.
Therein lies the conundrum. If the ball is dead due to the collision, there is no advancing runner on which to make a play. And if there is no play available, how can you meet the definition of INT?
__________________
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
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 23, 2018, 06:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
My issue with the play and applicable rules is that there was no interference. As noted, the runner did not break for home until F3 was knocked to the ground, so at the time of the collision, there was no play with which to interfere.
(Bold mine) Why does the bolded part have to be true? It seems to me the most minimal stretch is to treat this the same way we treat obstruction. It's actively happening until the runner recovers. Thus a runner tripped going around second just before getting to the base who falls between 2nd and 3rd was obstructed in between both 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd. A fielder knocked down is actively interfered with until she recovers (but it wouldn't be a play if there was nothing to do in that time period). Usually that doesn't matter because the interference kills the ball. Here it would matter.
I'm not necessarily arguing for this (though it makes the most sense to me) just asking why that isn't the best reading of the hole in the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 24, 2018, 09:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
(Bold mine) Why does the bolded part have to be true? It seems to me the most minimal stretch is to treat this the same way we treat obstruction. It's actively happening until the runner recovers. Thus a runner tripped going around second just before getting to the base who falls between 2nd and 3rd was obstructed in between both 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd. A fielder knocked down is actively interfered with until she recovers (but it wouldn't be a play if there was nothing to do in that time period). Usually that doesn't matter because the interference kills the ball. Here it would matter.
I'm not necessarily arguing for this (though it makes the most sense to me) just asking why that isn't the best reading of the hole in the rules.
So you are not going to kill the ball at the time of the collision? Anything subsequent to the ball becoming dead is irrelevant. On an INT call, we even suspend and rule on the location of the ball at the time of the INT and regardless of where the ball goes, its status does not change.
__________________
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
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 24, 2018, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
So you are not going to kill the ball at the time of the collision? Anything subsequent to the ball becoming dead is irrelevant. On an INT call, we even suspend and rule on the location of the ball at the time of the INT and regardless of where the ball goes, its status does not change.
Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 24, 2018, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.
Am active runner can be picked off at a base or try to advance.
__________________
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
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 25, 2018, 08:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.
I believe 8.6.13 covers that. As I read the OP, F3 was executing an immediate act of making a play on the BR and the effect includes an immediate dead ball.

As previously noted, it can be a stretch, but I believe this to be the closest rule in providing guidance to the umpire for this situation.
__________________
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
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
Runner collides with on deck batter Gmoore Softball 18 Wed Apr 23, 2014 07:04pm
fair/foul - then catch/no-catch David Emerling Baseball 36 Tue May 07, 2013 08:58am
Ref Collides with Player who has the Ball cshs81 Basketball 5 Fri Feb 08, 2008 07:54am
Catch or no catch(foul ball)? illiniwek8 Baseball 2 Sat Mar 25, 2006 07:16pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1