The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 11:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
This link was posted under the slow pitch thread. Since the rules are different WRT stealing, etc. for fast pitch, I'm hoping to move responses to this to a new thread.

(I'll probably fail miserably, but oh well...)

Here is the clip.

http://www.pianorosoftball.it/video/SimoBox.html

Was the out call proper? Why or why not? If not, what should the call have been? If not, are there situations where the out call would be correct.

ASA, or whatever (state your rule book).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 11:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
I can't think of a reason to justify an out here. I would think this would have to be treated the same as a batter sticking an elbow into a pitch intentionally. No attempt to avoid the pitch, I've got a dead ball and either a strike or a ball called depending on the location of the pitch. Don't have rulebooks with me at work so I can't quote a rule I'm using.
-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 12:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I can only see an out here if a runner was stealing 2nd at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 01:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
MC-
That's a good point. The thought of a runner stealing hadn't crossed my mind. In that case, batter out, runner back to first.

Edit:

Now, here's what I'm wondering now. Say count is something and 2. Batter sticks her hand like that over the plate. Dead ball. Do you call both batter and runner out much like interference by a retired batter, or do you still just sit the batter down and send the runner back to first?

-Josh

[Edited by U_of_I_Blue on Jun 16th, 2005 at 02:29 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 02:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Maybe picking nits here, but Batter would be out for interference before the strikeout was completed.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 02:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
True.

My thinking was, with 2 strikes and a pitch down the middle though, her sticking her hand out prevents 2 outs (her strikeout and a possible out at 2nd).

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 02:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Would it also be interference if, on a steal attempt, the batter merely leaned into the pitch?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 03:02pm
softball_junky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If the pitch was in the strike zone wouldn't it be a dead ball and a strike? If it was the third strike batter would be out runner would have to return to their base. If the pitch was a ball then you might have inference.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 04:10pm
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Don't know if it changes your thought or not...

...but look at third base - there's a runner.

And the way the teams come off the field after the ump calls the out leads me to believe that there were two outs at the TOP.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 05:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
You know what? This blue may have nailed it. If the situation with 2 strikes and 2 outs in this game, the blue got it right period (as long as the pitch was a strike, it looked like it from the video). I highly doubt we're going to have to worry about this though. Chances are no one in their right mind will actually do what this girl did.

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 16, 2005, 06:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 862
The pitch was nowhere near a strike. I don't see an out here unless it was INT if it was a 1st and 3rd sitch, with R2 stealing 2B.

But an INT would be both hands up as in DEAD BALL, not just a hammer-out.

I don't get it.

Also interesting that the offense didn't fuss about the call. There must be more than what was on the video.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 07:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
SRW - the existence of a runner on third does not mean that there was a play. Runner was not going anywhere, and not leading off in some extraordinary way. To have interference you have to have a play that was interfered with. If there's no R1, I can't see a justification for an interference call.

The more I look at this, the more it seems PU was ruling this a strike, and strike 3. We have an odd angle, so it's hard to know if this was close to the zone. Batter does put the hand forward, so it's possible.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 10:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 120
The only rule we found to justify such a call was ISF
Rule 7. Sec.6-l point 2(italian: 2. Intralcia intenzionalmente il ricevitore mentre si trova nel box del battitore).
But I agree with those who said a simple dead ball call + a 'don't do that anymore' will be enough.
Apply INTF rule only IF a steal play occurr.

I would like to underline just two little things:
- the ump was a baseball ump (a GOOD baseball one) and he probably didn't know ANYTHING about the rule I cited before
- quite funny the call was a (???) wellcome call since no-one said absolutely nothing about it (if you take a look to the batter... she seems to assent to the ump's call like 'you're right - it was my fault).

Thanks to everybody. I will tell the others about this thread.

A.
__________________
Antonella
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 11:24am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
SRW - the existence of a runner on third does not mean that there was a play. Runner was not going anywhere, and not leading off in some extraordinary way. To have interference you have to have a play that was interfered with. If there's no R1, I can't see a justification for an interference call.

The more I look at this, the more it seems PU was ruling this a strike, and strike 3. We have an odd angle, so it's hard to know if this was close to the zone. Batter does put the hand forward, so it's possible.
mcrowder - I don't dispute that... I was merely showing/telling my "partners" (i.e.: y'all) some more info to help the decision making process.

I think either the PU called strike 3, or was in "shock" like we all are about this play... and just ruled her out, but didn't know exactly why. He didn't appear sure of his call, and he didn't signal dead ball - which he should have done anytime the pitch hits the batter. He just hammered... either an out or a strike.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 01:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Antonella

- quite funny the call was a (???) wellcome call since no-one said absolutely nothing about it (if you take a look to the batter... she seems to assent to the ump's call like 'you're right - it was my fault).

Thanks to everybody. I will tell the others about this thread.

A.
I saw that too, it was like the batter knew the call was coming. It makes you wonder if she had done the same thing before and been warned not to do it again.
__________________
Travis
ASA Umpire
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 03:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1