The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Speaking ASA.

2004 change to rule 8-5B (obstruction), so the rule now reads:
Quote:
RUNNERS ARE ENTITLED TO ADVANCE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO BE PUT OUT. When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases. ...
OTOH, rule 8-7Q reads:
Quote:
THE RUNNER IS OUT. When a defensive player has the ball, or is about to catch a thrown ball, and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player. ...
It would seem that the defensive player described in 8-7Q who is about to catch a thrown ball is guilty of obstruction according to the change in 8-5B.

I'm assuming this is an oversight. Am I right, or is there something I am missing?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Speaking ASA.

2004 change to rule 8-5B (obstruction), so the rule now reads:
Quote:
RUNNERS ARE ENTITLED TO ADVANCE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO BE PUT OUT. When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases. ...
OTOH, rule 8-7Q reads:
Quote:
THE RUNNER IS OUT. When a defensive player has the ball, or is about to catch a thrown ball, and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player. ...
It would seem that the defensive player described in 8-7Q who is about to catch a thrown ball is guilty of obstruction according to the change in 8-5B.

I'm assuming this is an oversight. Am I right, or is there something I am missing?
Dakota,

I'm thinking 8-7Q was an oversight. Another example of expert craftmanship.

Michael
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
I think we went over this before. It is apparently an oversight.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
I think we went over this before. It is apparently an oversight.
Went over what before?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
we are having a conversation at ezteams concerning this rule, which I quoted it - where I am in disagreement with mike concerning his on board ruling. Oversite or not, no one here can officially delare that- ASA Must - as it is, it is there.

I dont know if its an oversight, but it is definately in the book. You dont HAVE to be obstructing the runner to be interfered with by getting hit by a runner though. INT overrides OBS -

The runner needs to slide or not make contact. It's a safety issue. If she is going to make contact she needs to hit the dirt.

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 02:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by wadeintothem
we are having a conversation at ezteams concerning this rule, which I quoted ...
I know - that's why I brought it here away from some of the more strident members of the eteamz board (I won't mention any names...).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 04:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156

Mike is gonna get ya'll.

__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 04:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
I had never really considered it might be a editing error.. but on rereading the POE's with an eye towards editing error.. it just might be. The POE's only address Runner Interference (by crash) with the Fielder in possession of the ball. On the other hand - it doesnt say they MUST have possession... it just addresses the situations with the player being discussed in possession.

The rule is still in the book though... so thats how I judge that play and how I already know that rule and enforce it - and I dont see a clarification on the site...but I could be missing it.

With us blues already being ratted-out on ezteams for wantonly making up our own strike zone as we go along with complete disregard for DD pitchers.. i'm not so sure we should be disregarding a clearly written rule without some basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 10:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,562
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Speaking ASA.

2004 change to rule 8-5B (obstruction), so the rule now reads:
Quote:
RUNNERS ARE ENTITLED TO ADVANCE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO BE PUT OUT. When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases. ...
OTOH, rule 8-7Q reads:
Quote:
THE RUNNER IS OUT. When a defensive player has the ball, or is about to catch a thrown ball, and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player. ...
It would seem that the defensive player described in 8-7Q who is about to catch a thrown ball is guilty of obstruction according to the change in 8-5B.

I'm assuming this is an oversight. Am I right, or is there something I am missing?
If it is an oversight, and I don't think it is, it should remain an oversight. They are two totally different rules covering a possible scenario with different resolutions. If you remove it, you have given those who believe obstructing fielders are legitimate targets, something upon which to hang their hat.

The first has to do with protecting obstructed runners while the second protects defenders from USC.

__________________
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 03:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
I may be a minority on this, but I agree with the wording. Here's why. Like Mike said - 2 separate rules covering 2 separate scenarios. Yes, the obstructed runner is protected... But that same obstructed runner must still run the bases legally. And both interference and unsportsmanlike conduct by that same obstructed runner will negate the obstruction.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 07:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
With all due respect (and it is considerable), you guys (Mike and Steve) are rationalizing, it seems to me.

The phrase at issue in 8-7Q is
Quote:
or is about to catch a thrown ball,
not the entire rule.

Second, the rule says nothing about USC, but is declaring the runner out for interference. You are reading USC into the rule. It isn't there. The rule covers every collision, not just the flagrant ones.

Further, POE 13, dealing with this specific scenario, limits the OUT call to a fielder with possession of the ball. POE 13 makes a distinction between merely remaining upright and crashing and a flagrant crash (USC). I can accept the ASA case book interp that a flagrant act of USC also results in an out, but that out is due to the flagrant USC, not due to interference.

POE 13F also states quite clearly that if everything arrives simultaneously, it is neither OBS nor INT.

How can you possibly have INT and OBS on the same physical contact between the same two players? That seems to be what you are arguing.

To wit: "It would be OBS since the fielder does not have possession, but since the runner remained upright, it is interference, since the fielder was about to catch the thrown ball."

Boy, is that convoluted.

Again, if the crash is flagrant, then using the case play for authority, the runner is out for flagrant misconduct. But not for interference.

Again, again.... I am only talking about the case where the fielder "is about to catch a thrown ball."
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 08:25am
JEL JEL is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 910

The first has to do with protecting obstructed runners while the second protects defenders from USC.


This is about as simple as it can be put. There is no contradiction.

In my "simple" mind I see this.

The first has to do with protecting obstructed runners while the second protects defenders from (players who have been told by coaches, if shes in your way flatten her, she ain't supposed to be there) USC.

There are threads on that "other" board that state what I have placed in ( ).
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 09:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
It's not just talking about interference - it's penalizing the runner for remaining upright and making contact (i.e. not sliding or avoiding). Two separate scenarios - my take is that the rulebook is telling me that interference due to a runner not sliding or avoiding trumps what would have previously been obstruction had the runner slid or avoided.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 09:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
I dont mind if she flattens the fielder, but she has to hit the dirt to do it. There was actually a great play at 2nd base in the College Championship where the runner did just that - took out F4 (maybe [email protected]) causing bad throw at 1B... but runner was sliding. Considering Mike's opinion above, I definately dont understand his ruling on the call in question.

1st Post of the scenario

Quote:
OK, here is a tougher OBS/INT sitch (to go along with the new wording):

Player going first to third.

Ball gets to the bag, 3B waiting.

As the runner is just about to crash into the 3B, who is about a foot in front of the base, ball glances off 3B's glove.

Collision ensues (almost immediately), 3B to the ground, ball obviously out.

Is this a no call? INT on the runner? OBS? The runner DID affect the fielder's ability to catch.

The fielder WAS blocking the bag.
The runner did not slide or avoid (but did she have to?). AND the fielder never had possession.

Thanks
To which I call INT
He provides this info
Quote:

That is what I had (the INT call).

But in retrosepct, I realized the fielder did not have the ball. It had already dropped, albeit partially due to the runner standing up.

If the drop preceded the contact........
Mike calls it OBS or USC.
I thought the justification for mikes call was that he may agree this was a misworded rule - but since he agrees with/applies the rule I dont see how he can disregard it when a runner crashes into a fielder in the act of fielding causing her to drop the ball but doesnt slide.

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with this INT rule and have enforced it a few times this year. If it's an oversight, the only way I would stop enforcing it as it's written is to have ASA put out a clarification. I dont believe in running over catchers/fielders without sliding. Not in amateur and especially youth ball for sure.

[Edited by wadeintothem on May 28th, 2004 at 12:04 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 28, 2004, 10:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Part of the problem here was that the original post was problematic.

________________________________________

1) Ball gets to the bag, 3B waiting.

2) As the runner is just about to crash into the 3B, who is about a foot in front of the base, ball glances off 3B's glove.

Collision ensues (almost immediately), 3B to the ground, ball obviously out.
______________________________________

Wait - it seems from 1 that the 3B is waiting WITH the ball. Then in 2, the ball arrives again. So ... was F5 in the way without the ball (yes, according to 2, no according to 1) - if so, it's obstruction.

However, if the runner can forsee the collision and does not either avoid or slide, it's interference (regardless of maliciousness).
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1