|
Thu Dec 15, 2005, 09:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know that some of you dont like Referee magazine, but Softball has been back for several years now and it is a good reference. However, I question a couple statements in recent issues and I thought I would bring them here for your input.
1. December issue, Caseplays. Interference by a runner against a defender attempting to make a play on a deflected ball. ASA (deflect) and NCAA (ricochet) require intent for interference to be called. NFHS and U-trip do not have a rule containing the word deflect. By strict interpretation of the book, interference is interference, intentional or not. Referee recommends ruling in an NFHS or U-trip game as in the ASA or NCAA code. Intent is required; otherwise you probably have incidental contact or obstruction. What say you would you use another book if your book does not specifically address the incident? 2. January issue. How to get the tough calls right by Jay Milner. Situation: defense attempting to turn 6-4-3 DP and R1 gets hit by the thrown ball. Jay states that if R1 is not close to 2B he would not call interference (absent any intentional act on the part of R1). However, if R1 remains on her feet as she nears 2B and could slide into 2B or avoid the throw but didnt, rule intentional interference on the retired runner, and call runner out that is closest to home. Anybody here buying that interpretation? WMB 
|
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005, 10:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
(1) In NFHS rules, I would rule as stated not because it is stated in another rule book, but because my understanding of NFHS rules are that they do support the same ruling as NCAA and ASA. Just because NFHS does not use the specific word "deflect" does not mean the play is not covered.
(2) I disagree with this ruling. A "must slide" rule, whether formally or informally enforced is not proper.
__________________
Dan
|
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005, 02:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
No interference in #1 ASA or FED
No way in #2 The runner does not have to give herself up because she thinks she might be out. Just because she is close to the base and doesnt slide is no reason to bang her...what if its a close play? If its an obvious twin killing and she is already out, thats a different issue.
|
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
SCUMP: "Just because NFHS does not use the specific word "deflect" does not mean the play is not covered."
Please advise where this is covered. Remember that "intent" is required. WMB
|
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005, 11:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regarding #1, How's this (both for ASA and NFHS):
If the deflected batted ball moves in such a way that the runner had little or no chance to avoid, then obvious intent is required. If the deflected batted ball moves in such a way that the runner has ample time to avoid the impending play being made by the defense, but just continues running anyway, the the failure to make any attempt to avoid is intent. In between, judgment on which way it goes, with the benefit of the doubt to the runner. Regarding the broader question on taking a ruling from another book to cover "silence" the the book being used, that is proper if the books are generally aligned, as ASA and NFHS are (not perfectly aligned, but generally aligned). Example: Safety base rule in NFHS (although with the dumbing down / complicating of the rule by ASA this year, NFHS may need to actually do something.) Regarding #2. I disagree with the ruling.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005, 12:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not only does the rule book (ASA) demand intent, common sense does the same. Just as the batter's requirement to stay in the BB to avoid INT with a catcher making an attempt to put out a runner, the same logic applies here. A catcher knows where the batter is supposed to be so she knows where she can throw the ball to get the out. She doesn't have to guess which way the batter will move because the batter must remain in the box. Same on the bases. The runner always has every right to attempt to advance to the base s/he is trying to attain. Just because they are put out at some point does not mean they must abandon the basepath. The fielders (and I know the SP players are a bit dense on this point) must learn where their throwing lane is located and it's not through the runner head. Asking the runner to move only invites more problems as now the defender and retired runner must guess which way the other will go. If the both go the same way, now you may very well have INT and that is a much tougher call than not calling INT on a retired runner in the basepath. So, to answer the question, no, I do not buy it.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 07:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Art 6... A runner is hit with a fair batted ball after it touches [ricochets off], or is touched by [deflected by], any fielder, including the pitcher, and the runner cound not avoid [not intentional] contact with the ball.
__________________
Dan
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 09:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 11:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Dan
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
