|
Fri Aug 26, 2005, 03:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
In baseball and I believe in Softball as well it is legal to slide into second with the object of taking the 2nd baseman off of his feet in order to break up the double play. Based on Rule 8-7-P, why do we allow this?
The rule says that... When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Also, how do you interpret "opportunity to make a play on another runner"? If the defense had no way of getting the out, even without the interference, do we enforce the interference? Do we call someone out? For example, if the BR was well passed 1B when the runner interferred with the 2nd basemans attempt to turn the double play, should we call the runner closest to home out? If there was no opportunity to make a play, then what do we do? Nothing? If we wait to see if there was a legitimate chance to get an out, then the interference call will be delayed in some cases. If we call "Dead Ball" on the interefence and then determine there was no chance of getting the out, what do we do then?
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association 
|
|
Fri Aug 26, 2005, 03:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
WE don't. if you do, you're doing it wrong. This is not MLB - intentional contact to break up a double play is an out in ALL codes of baseball except MLB, and ALL codes of softball.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Fri Aug 26, 2005, 04:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) The offense has done something contrary to the rules of the game 2) IMHO The spirit of the rule is: You don't go hard into the 2B (or 3B or C) in softball to "break up a double play." 3) Either you are calling someone else out or you are ejecting the retired baserunner for unsportsmanlike conduct - or, in extreme cases, I suppose you could do both although that seems rash.
__________________
John An ucking fidiot
|
|
Fri Aug 26, 2005, 09:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It all goes back to intent. The runner from first was intent on breaking up a double play, therefore they took the chance away from the second baseman. They do not have to throw ball and it does not matter where the batter / runner is at when it happens.
Rabbit
|
|
Sat Aug 27, 2005, 07:28am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well, yeah, it does. If the BR has already attained and runs through 1B at the time of the INT, there was no play to be made (here we go again) and that runner should not be ruled out.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Aug 27, 2005, 11:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
I will play along, just for discussion where does it say that in the book?. The runner does not know have a clue if the batter / runner is going to be safe at first before they commit interference at second. It was intent. But if that is so, then lets add to the rule book... if the runner was safe before the interference happen we now have USC on the runner causing the interference and throw both him and the coach. Just a thought. Rabbit
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005, 09:32am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Once the BR safely touches first, s/he is a runner. If the BR attained 1B prior to the INT, there was no further play with which to interfere unless that player did not run through the base.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005, 01:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
As you would say, here we go again. I submit that they need to reword or add to 8.6.C. I would believe that they are refering to any other runners on base if you are enforcing rule 8.7.P. and in this case since no other runners are on base closer to home, the batter runner is your second out on the interference call at second. It does not matter if he was safe at first before the interference call at second, his intent was to break up the double play. Mike (Rabbit)
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005, 08:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the BR reached 1B safely, s/he is no longer the BR, but a runner. If the BR became a runner and there was no runner in possible jeopardy, there is no INT available, by rule. Unsportsmanlike conduct is a possibility, but the umpire will not get an extra out.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005, 10:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
Thank You for the exchange. As a fellow umpire I know likes to say, I can only wish that the people that write the rules also umpired. But where in the rules does it say in the case of interference at second by the runner and with no other runners on that it makes a difference where the Batter runner is at when interference occurs. Always learning. On another note I understand that the ASA 16U nationals will be in Seattle Washington, hope to see some of the my fellow umpires from the site there. Would enjoy umpiring with them. Mike (Rabbit)
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005, 10:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
re
There is nothing wrong with a clean hard slide directly into second base. However, that crap you see in MLB where the runner slides three feet to the outfield side of the bag directly at the fielder is not allowed.
__________________
Blu
|
|
Mon Aug 29, 2005, 02:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the BR has not yet reached 1B at the time of R1's action, it is possible that the umpire would deem the act by R1 kept the defense from completing a play. That would make it INT. If the BR has attained 1B and runs through the bag at the time of R1's action, there is no play with which to interfere, so it is not possible to have an INT call. BTW, umpires weigh in heavily on proposed new rules or rule changes. Their advice is more often followed than not.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Aug 29, 2005, 04:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
16U nationals
Quote:
__________________
John An ucking fidiot
|
|
Tue Aug 30, 2005, 10:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok so we have established that we have no interference call at second base because the batter runner was safe at first. What call do we now make? For now I like USC and he is gone for the game?
I will forward my thoughts to my UIC for possible changes. bkbjones, sorry you have be behind the scenes for the 2006 16U nationals in Seattle. I will have my UIC contact your UIC. Looking forward to meeting you there. Mike (Rabbit)
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
