After living in North Dakota for 17 years, but not currently, I would tell you it may be 'third world' in many ways; but not when it comes to softball. Bismarck is home to one of the largest, if not the largest, softball tournaments around (over 400 teams each year). And at one time ND had the highest % of adult softball players in the country. Many people take their vacations to coincide with softball state tournaments. I played for 10 years and umped for 6 years there and it was great.

cool, a new argument added to my repitoire....

"Coach, I know what you think you saw, but he's OUT in New Zealand." :D

I think Glen was referring to the usual friendly neighboring state border jokes. You know, the jokes you tell in ND about SD, MN, MT, and Canada; the jokes we tell about ND, SD, IA, WI, and Canada. Dakota County is in MN.

Also, as said, a "third world play" simply means a highly unlikely made-up play designed to illustrate a rule issue. Some people just have as their primary agenda trying to provoke an argument.

Ok I see now, you might say I'm a little slow after living in ND for so long. :)

I've been to Dakota County, in fact had friends that lived in Burnsville during college. Enough people to have plenty of softball - would occasionally run into a team from the area at the McQuades tournament in Bismarck. Like I said it had over 400 teams from throughout the US and Canada.

Mike Rowe
I take your meaning of third world play in the context that it is given and take no offence .
However you mention where softball is not well known or organised .
3 times mens world champions and women 6th in the Olympics
The highest % per head of ISF umpires in the world awrded by Merle Butler the Umpire in Chief of world ISF softball .
NZ may be small by your standards ( actually by anyones standards ) but it is well run .

I would sincerely appreciate it if we could take a break from the geography lessons and the "enzees" while someone knowledgeable responds to my post "Jun 3rd, 2005 01:47 PM "

Dave,

May I suggest you actually read what I typed. I offered a definition of "third world play", PERIOD!

I did NOT mention or cite any particular continent or country, did I?

I'm well aware of the softball prowess of NZ and your neighbors especially on the men's FP side of the game.

In the play you cite, if at the time of interference, you said to yourself "I have runner protected the 3B", then you have ruled as ASA requires. If at the time you told yourself "runner would be out at 3B with no obstruction, but if it is close, I will award due to obstruction", that is incorrect and openended.

Years ago, I was taught that obstruction was to be awarded using both the initial opinion of award, and the "runner lost 2 steps" approach. That was open-ended, and made sure a penalty was attached unless the runner exceeded all 3 forms of protection (those two, plus the between two bases). In your play, if the runner forced a subsequent error, and was in a close play at home, the old method still protected, since it was within the "lost 2 steps". That isn't what ASA wants; it wants 1) protected between 2 bases, and 2) protected only to where you judge runner would have reached if no obstruction occurred.

Hope that is clear and covers your concerns.