The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Apparently the stipulation about a subsequent play on a different runner will not be removed next year—it belongs there. However, the new rule still needs clarification.

The clause about a subsequent play applies only if the runner who was obstructed is not the lone runner. If he is the lone runner, he can now be put out between the bases where he was obstructed (after he makes the base he would have made without the OBS) for a fifth reason beyond the four that existed last year (passes a runner, leaves a base too soon, misses a base, commits interference).

Therefore:

1. Nobody on. Abel singles to center and takes a wide turn. The defense throws behind Abel, and Abel is obstructed going back to 1B. The ball gets away and Abel returns to 1B, then tries to advance to 2B. Abel is thrown out at 2B.

Now Abel is out. (Last year, he could not have been put out between 1B and 2B.)

2. Same situation, but after the OBS, Abel does not return to 1B but tries for 2B and is thrown out.

Return Abel to 1B. He didn't make the base he would have made without the OBS.

3. Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker gets a hit. Abel makes it to 3B but Baker is caught in a rundown between 1B and 2B. Baker is obstructed going back to 1B but makes it safely anyway. The ball gets away and Abel tries to score. The defense throws home to play on Abel (safe or out doesn't matter), and then Baker is thrown out trying for 2B.

Baker is out. He was not the lone runner, he made it to the base he would have made, and there was a subsequent play on a different runner.

4. Same situation as in #3, except that after the ball gets away Abel remains on 3B and there is no play on Abel. Baker is thrown out trying for 2B.

Baker is returned to 1B, because Baker was not the lone runner and (though he made the base he would have made absent the OBS) there was no subsequent play on a different runner.

__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 04:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
We haven't had any of our rules clinics yet this year (neither Fed nor ASA), but just going by the written word in the rule book,
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
The clause about a subsequent play applies only if the runner who was obstructed is not the lone runner. If he is the lone runner, he can now be put out between the bases where he was obstructed (after he makes the base he would have made without the OBS) for a fifth reason beyond the four that existed last year (passes a runner, leaves a base too soon, misses a base, commits interference).
Obviously there can only be a subsequent play on another runner if there IS another runner, but how do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?

In your situations, I would have:

1. Safe, return the runner to 1st.
2. Safe, return the runner to 1st.
3. Out.
4. Safe, return the runner to 1st.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 05:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
How do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?

The lone runner stipulation can't be inferred from the printed rule. This is what Bob Mauger (NJ UIC) told me. Apparently it has come down from on high.

The way the new rule is written, Abel would indeed be given first in #1 (there was no subsequent play on a different runner). However, there is supposedly a "lone runner" exception that the book neglected to state.

I don't know why they decided on ruling the way they did. Again, this is only what I've been told.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 05:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
How do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?

The lone runner stipulation can't be inferred from the printed rule. This is what Bob Mauger (NJ UIC) told me. Apparently it has come down from on high.

Nope, not for ASA. There must be a play on a subsequent runner. Just went through this at the CAR clinic. If there is no subsequent play on another runner, the obstructed player remains protected between the bases they were obstructed.

I raised the possibility of having it changed to eliminate the "subsequent play" portion in Mobile, AL and was just told that it would not happen. Maybe in the future, but it's not that way now.

__________________
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
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 05:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Several umpires in our association, including me, asked for some kind of substantiation of this "lone runner" exception in case a coach shows us the rule, which of course says there must be a play on a subsequent runner and says nothing about a lone runner.

Bob Mauger said to give the coach his e-mail address. He also said that he would try to find the message he received explaining the exception.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 15, 2005, 08:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Mike, at the National UIC Clinic in OKC, Walt Sparks addressed this in the breakout session on obstruction. Frankly, I believe he misspoke several times, and many people left the session totally confused. In the session I attended, we challenged one play, and he reconsidered and reversed himself; but that wasn't the first breakout.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Mauger heard it (or thought he heard it) there; but you and I know from Mobile that isn't the rule. A subsequent play must be on a different runner; this play is a continuing play on the same runner.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 07:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
Mike, at the National UIC Clinic in OKC, Walt Sparks addressed this in the breakout session on obstruction. Frankly, I believe he misspoke several times, and many people left the session totally confused. In the session I attended, we challenged one play, and he reconsidered and reversed himself; but that wasn't the first breakout.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Mauger heard it (or thought he heard it) there; but you and I know from Mobile that isn't the rule. A subsequent play must be on a different runner; this play is a continuing play on the same runner.
Thanks, Steve.

I don't remember hearing that. I was out of snyc with the rest of the UICs on the breakout schedule, so I probably missed Walter make that statement.

__________________
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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Even if Bob Mauger has received notification from on high that this is the correct ruling, with there being no exception for lone runner in the actual book, I think we will have a hard time justifying our ruling to a coach, or when he protests, to the protest committee. I can see it now:

"Mike - the book clearly shows you are wrong. This runner is still protected".

Me: "Yes, I see that, but I read on the internet where some guy in another state got an email from his sister's cousin's boyfriend that said that after Ferris passed out at 31 Flavors last night, he said that this runner should be out. I guess it's pretty serious."

"Thanks, Simone."

"No problem whatsoever."

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 10:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
I agree with Tom on all answers. Have seen no ruling from
anyone changing
the fact that a runner is not protected between the two bases that OBS
occured unless one of
"The 5" things happened.

__________________
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 16, 2005, 02:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
I am 100% with you guys. The new rule does not make any exception for a situation with a lone runner and clearly requires a subsequent play on a different runner.

Although the contradictory info isn't quite from some guy's sister's cousin's boyfriend, if I were not in NJ, I would follow the rule as written. On the other hand, when our UIC tells us to call it a certain way . . .
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
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 12:30am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1