The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 01:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 112
Situation: Class AAA sectionals, losers bracket, loser goes home and winner gets one more game to advance to State finals. 3rd inning 0 to 0 R1 on 1B No Outs 2 Balls 2 Strikes

Batter is left handed and a pitch comes inside, batter bends at the waist and the ball hits the shirt hanging loose, PU call ball 3

Coach comes and questions if ball it the shirt, PU confirms it did. Coach asks for HBTP and Batter awarded 1B. PU denies the request and Coach asks why? PU states the shirt was not tucked in, coach asks what difference that makes and PU responds, " the uniform must be worn properly and if the shirt had been tucked in the ball would not have hit the shirt, no 1B awarded. PU says play ball and Coach say I can't believe it, are sure that is the rule and PU says that is the rule.

Play resumes. Was the call correct?
__________________
"Just My Humble Opinion"

The Bagman
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 07:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 425
sounds like PU did right, especially if he told them at the pregame to get the shirts tucked in

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 07:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
I would agree to a point. Some shirts are being designed
to be worn outside the pants.
I agree that the ones that are not can easily be hit without
the ball touching the individual and this should not be an awarded
base if the pre-game conference included the fact that shirts
should be worn inside the pants uniform. Most shirts designed
to be worn outside are snug and the ball would just about have to
also hit the person wearing it.

__________________
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
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 08:25am
JEL JEL is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 910
Hit the shirt hanging loose on an inside pitch at the waist level?

Unless batter was real far off the plate, I got a STRIKE!

If ball was judged to be out of the zone then yes I have a HBP. However, if uniform was not being worn properly (not tucked in) shouldn't PU have issued a warning before the pitch?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 09:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Technically, a bad call.

Game management-wise, a bad explanation, unless he had instructed them to wear their uniforms properly already.

In giving the explanation, he had his choice of lies (unless he was willing to award the base).

He could either lie about the rule (which he did - the rule requires the uniform to be worn properly but does not remove the HBP award if it is not) or he could lie about what he saw (better game management choice, IMO, once he has decided he is not going to follow the rule and award the base). "Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3." If he had already warned them about uniforms, he could say it such a way the coach gets the message.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 27, 2004, 02:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
"Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3."

That explanation would be a poor choice!

Since he initially ruled that there was contact, he should have signaled an immediate dead ball.

If he did, that would blow the possible explanation offered above right out of the water. (Coach to umpire: "Then why did you call dead ball?")

If he didn't call dead ball on the HBP, then consider that he one more mechanic he needs to brush-up on.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 27, 2004, 02:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,387
The pregame does not need to cover anything that is in the rule book, just ground rules, time limits, league/tourney rules, etc.
It is standard practice to ignore contact with a uniform that is too baggy, incorrectly worn, held in the mouth, etc.
It's not a lie if you know a rule and present an interpretation/application you believe.
__________________
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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 27, 2004, 03:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by BretMan
"Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3."

That explanation would be a poor choice!

Since he initially ruled that there was contact, he should have signaled an immediate dead ball.
I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 27, 2004, 04:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,802
NFHS and ASA do not have that exception (loose uniform hit by pitch) to HBTP, while NCAA does. IMO, possibly the right call, but the wrong rule cited.

No, I wouldn't state the ball didn't hit the shirt; I prefer to be honest. But, in my judgement, the batter failed to attempt to avoid the pitch, thus dead ball, ball, no free base. No further explanation of judgement required (or desirable).
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 28, 2004, 08:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Wink

Tom,

"I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact."

Then I'll rephrase my hypothetical question from the coach to the umpire (after his explanation offered that there was contact):

"Why didn't you call a dead ball?"

Your proposed explanation would work fine if the umpire did not call a dead ball, and merely called "ball 3".

If we are to assume from the original post that he did not call a dead ball, then the explanation offered to the coach that "it hit her shirt but it wasn't tucked in" would raise the question of why a dead ball wasn't called.

If he really did see contact (which he did, by his own admittance) then he should have called a dead ball. Right?

If he did not, then I would say that he needs to brush-up on that mechanic.

If he did kill the ball, as he properly should have, then the explanation you propose ("In my judgement there was no contact") wouldn't fly.

My only point, in a roundabout way, was that depending on which mechanic he used his "explanation" could serve to dig himself a deeper hole!

How about it Bagman62- was a dead ball called on that play or not?


Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 28, 2004, 08:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally posted by BretMan
Tom,

"I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact."

Then I'll rephrase my hypothetical question from the coach to the umpire (after his explanation offered that there was contact):

"Why didn't you call a dead ball?"

Your proposed explanation would work fine if the umpire did not call a dead ball, and merely called "ball 3".

If we are to assume from the original post that he did not call a dead ball, then the explanation offered to the coach that "it hit her shirt but it wasn't tucked in" would raise the question of why a dead ball wasn't called.

If he really did see contact (which he did, by his own admittance) then he should have called a dead ball. Right?

If he did not, then I would say that he needs to brush-up on that mechanic.

If he did kill the ball, as he properly should have, then the explanation you propose ("In my judgement there was no contact") wouldn't fly.

My only point, in a roundabout way, was that depending on which mechanic he used his "explanation" could serve to dig himself a deeper hole!

How about it Bagman62- was a dead ball called on that play or not?


Bretman,

From the originial post:

"Batter is left handed and a pitch comes inside, batter bends at the waist and the ball hits the shirt hanging loose, PU call ball 3"

I believe that this would be admission and awareness of the
fact the he saw
the action.
__________________
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
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 28, 2004, 10:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Technically, a bad call.

Game management-wise, a bad explanation, unless he had instructed them to wear their uniforms properly already.

In giving the explanation, he had his choice of lies (unless he was willing to award the base).
Quoting myself just to be clear.

I don't like his call, and I don't like his explanation, and if you are not going to make this call (speaking ASA), then you are backed into a corner of having to try to fudge (OK - lie was a bit harsh) your way around the rule and the coach.

What this umpire did was tell the coach that something was the rule when it wasn't.

Since in the originally stated scenario, I did not see a dead ball being called, I made the assumption that the umpire decided to ignore the ball hitting the uniform, and when the coach called him on it, he made something up to bluff the coach. At least, that is how I read it.

Hence - bad call, worse explanation.

I DO like the "no attempt to avoid" as a better way to handle this, assuming the batter made no or only minor attempt to avoid.

If I am allowing billowing uni's to remain untucked, shame on me. I would prefer the "FYC" tone to an explanation on why it was not called than a "bluff the coach" attempt.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 28, 2004, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 112
Federation Rules

At a preseason clinic the question was asked " If a ball hits only the untucked shirt of a batter what is the call?" The answer was only a ball should be called, this is the only time I have seen a ball hit only the shirt and not the batter's body.

At pregame verified all players properly equipped and dressed.After game the UIC and a GHSA Represemtative said the call was the correct call. Over 1/2 umpires onsite that were asked agreed with the call so it is possible that was "misunderstood, bad, incorrect or wrong information given at the preseason clinic.

Thanks to all for giving clarification and opinions, I will get the call correct should this happen again.
__________________
"Just My Humble Opinion"

The Bagman
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 08:34am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1