The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 13, 2018, 08:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 654
I don't think anything is unclear. Obviously some people do or the OP would have never been posted.

If I had to guess, I would say it's trying to reconcile the fact that one rule says the runner and batter are both out and another rule says there cannot be a fourth out (with the exception).

Hell, after re-reading the thread...you are the one that pointed it out.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 13, 2018, 11:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altor View Post
I don't think anything is unclear. Obviously some people do or the OP would have never been posted.

If I had to guess, I would say it's trying to reconcile the fact that one rule says the runner and batter are both out and another rule says there cannot be a fourth out (with the exception).

Hell, after re-reading the thread...you are the one that pointed it out.
From what I understand, the discussion occurred among a group of umpires who worked both NFHS & USA. Some had a difficult time separating the two and insisted you couldn't get two outs. What is sad is that this is not a new rule and there were umpires who did not know this. Once the rule was read along with the associated RS, everyone was hopefully on the same page.
__________________
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 Thu Jun 14, 2018, 08:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,292
Not asking for clarity or explanation.

As I said, just looking for documented agreement from on high;

only about the at-bat being over and that player not batting the next inning.
__________________
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
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:45pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Not asking for clarity or explanation.

As I said, just looking for documented agreement from on high;

only about the at-bat being over and that player not batting the next inning.
I don't think you need any of that.

When a runner interferes with a batted ball, that's covered by rule 8-7-J-1. The Effect is that the runner is out, and the BR is put on first base. His/her at-bat is complete.

There's only one exception that doesn't call for the BR to be put on first, and that's on interference with a catchable fly ball with ordinary effort. In that case, the batter's is considered out as well, and, again, his/her time at bat is complete. There is no exception to that exception that says the batter's at-bat is not complete if there were already two outs, and he/she gets to lead off the next inning.

The only scenario by rule that keeps a batter up to the plate after a runner hinders a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball is if the ball ended up being a foul fly, and the fielder had no legitimate opportunity to make the catch with ordinary effort. Then, and only then, it's ruled a foul ball and the batter remains up to bat (unless, of course, it was a ball bunted with two strikes, or it was a third strike in slow pitch).
__________________
"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
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 14, 2018, 07:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
There's only one exception that doesn't call for the BR to be put on first, and that's on interference with a catchable fly ball with ordinary effort. In that case, the batter's is considered out as well, and, again, his/her time at bat is complete. .
The problem is USA does not allow the "fourth" out in this scenario. Some would argue that mean the batter leads off the next inning. IMO, cannot happen and rule 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
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
Interference with F3 on Fly Ball Manny A Softball 23 Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:56pm
Men's "wreck" ball interference tiger49 Baseball 2 Mon Jul 14, 2003 08:04pm
Interference on routine fly ball greymule Softball 1 Thu Aug 01, 2002 03:26pm
There's no interference. Just dead ball, right? spots101 Baseball 7 Tue Jun 18, 2002 12:18am
Interference on Ball 4 PeteBooth Baseball 3 Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:42pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1