|
Fri Feb 13, 2004, 10:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Went to our local preseason meeting last night and didn't get much of an answer to this question. Will the new ASA possession of the ball stipulation for blocking a base have any bearing on how Fed games will be called this year? Fed still uses about to receive in their text. I asked our Fed interpreter but he dismissed my question with a "no one will no the difference" comment and then moved on to other "important" business. I do both ASA and Fed and am wondering if anyone else might see a potential problem keeping the two straight. Any other organization mention this at all?
|
|
Fri Feb 13, 2004, 10:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Little Jimmy,
Since FED did not change it, think I would call it by their interpretation. Several other associations did not go with ASA as of yet. Catch a rule wise FED coach and they would have valid reason for protest. When in Rome, do as the Romans prescribe.
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain.
|
|
Fri Feb 13, 2004, 11:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The clinician just noted the ASA on his shirt and continued with covering ASA pitching rules.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Fri Feb 13, 2004, 11:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
NFHS and USSSA still have the "about to recieve" wording in the rule. However, I don't think that this will present much of a problem in keeping them straight, for the simple reason that glen has already noted.
Just remember, as a rule of thumb, in ASA, the fielder needs to be in possession of the ball. In all others, the ball needs to be between the runner and the fielder. I have a sneaking suspicion that next year, this discussion will be moot! There is already talk in the USSSA camp that there will be a wording change next year.
__________________
Scott It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 07:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To my knowledge (which just includes the last couple of years for NFHS), Fed has never used the "ball closer to the fielder than the runner" to officially interpret "about to receive." (At least, I've never seen it in writing.)
It is what I used for Fed games, since I was used to the ASA way and Fed had no contrary explanation. If Fed has not changed to the international rule, then you should still call it their way. Those with more Fed experience than I can perhaps shed some light on how Fed clinicians have interpreted the "about to receive" language in the past.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 09:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
NFHS 2002/2003 Umpires Manual, page 47.
"Obstruction is the act of a fielder who is in the base path without the ball, and is not attempting to field a batted ball or about to receive a thrown ball, and who impedes the progress of a runner. A general rule of thumb, on "about to receive a thrown ball philosophies," is that when the ball is beween the runner and the fielder catching it, the fielder is "about to receive it." So - an NHFS umpire can use his own judgement of about to receive, or he can use the offered "rule of thumb" interpretation. If he uses the "rule of thumb" then 99.99999% of the time he negates "about to receive." Thus obstruction becomes "the act of a fielder who is in the base path without the ball." IMO (as you well know, Dakota!) there never has been "about to receive" as long as that "closer to fielder" interpretation has been around. All ASA did was clean up the language and officially get rid of "about to receive" in 2004. I assume that NFHS and others will follow in 2005. WMB
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 10:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess I was just so glad to see ASA clear up the wording that I was hoping the locals might use that interpretation for Fed this year. Your right, call what your organization says untill they don't say it anymore ("dance with the one that brung ya").
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 11:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The only problem I would have with that is the baseball application to a softball rule. Remember, a lot of the Fed softball rules were drawn from the baseball side of Fed. Every little ball umpire I've had this discussion with insist that the defender is about to receive the ball once their teammate has released the throw in their direction, not when it gets between the runner and fielder. Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 11:17am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 for bringing the "other game" into this discussion, but only doing so for demonstrative purposes. The only problem I would have with that is the baseball application to a softball rule. Remember, a lot of the Fed softball rules were drawn from the baseball side of Fed. Every little ball umpire I've had this discussion with insist that the defender is about to receive the ball once their teammate has released the throw in their direction, not when it gets between the runner and fielder. Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 03:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Say what!? The "about to receive" has been in ASA for as long as I've been working softball and I never had a problem with it."
Nor have I. I always felt comfortable making an "about to receive" judgment. What I have always objected to is replacing my judgment with an interpretation (ball is closer), a physics theorem, which is indefensible under the cold light of common sense and logic. And you, Mike, are on record on this forum as stating that, "when the ball is closer," that it will reach the defender before the runner 99.99999999999999% of the time. Thus the defender has the ball - no "about to receive." So if "about to receive" basically does not exist, then why not just get rid of it totally. And I applaud ASA for following the ISF rule, and I believe that NFHS will follow in 2005. It definitely should clean up the game, and yes, make it safer. WMB
|
|
Sat Feb 14, 2004, 04:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The previous rule allowed the fielder to move into the basepath as the ball approached. Much like the retired runner between bases, we can not expect the fielder to just go "poof" and disappear the moment they muff the attempt to catch the ball or miss it all together. The new rule changes the mechanics of the fielder in their attempt to retire a runner via a tag out. The new rule attempts to push the fielder out of way and give the runner a clear base path unless that fielder actually gains possession of the ball prior to moving into the runner's path. This will alleviate many dangerous collisions and not so much because of the change, but because the change is drastic to the point that coaches have been forced to realize that there is no longer a grey area and they are more likely to lose an out and risk player injury for no good reason. Please don't read that as condoning the risk of injury for an out, I do not. However, we have all seen coaches teach kids to drop to their knee an block a sliding runner without the ball hoping to get the ball and the call.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
