The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
The following happened in a HS game the other day. I will tell you what the umpires ruled and what I think they should have ruled after everyone has had the chance to chime in.

R1 on 1B. B2 hits a hot grounder to F5 who boots the ball, sending it in the direction of the open offensive dugout. (No wall or screening to protect the bench). Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an offensive player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Skahtboi
R1 on 1B. B2 hits a hot grounder to F5 who boots the ball, sending it in the direction of the open offensive dugout. (No wall or screening to protect the bench). Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an offensive player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?
I can't tell from your post if the offensive player caused the ball to roll into the dugout or not. Or if she was in or out of the dogout.
If she did then the runners stop at first and second.
If the ball would have entered the dugout anyway, apply book rule. R1 at 3rd, B2 at second.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by JFA67
Quote:
Originally posted by Skahtboi
R1 on 1B. B2 hits a hot grounder to F5 who boots the ball, sending it in the direction of the open offensive dugout. (No wall or screening to protect the bench). Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an offensive player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?
I can't tell from your post if the offensive player caused the ball to roll into the dugout or not. Or if she was in or out of the dogout.
If she did then the runners stop at first and second.
If the ball would have entered the dugout anyway, apply book rule. R1 at 3rd, B2 at second.

I think Scott is looking for an INT discussion here.

Not sure if NFHS would be the same, but speaking ASA.

It could be INT if the offensive player's presence prevented the defense from making a play. If not INT, the ball would be a blocked ball which kills the play and the runners would return to the base last touched at the time the ball became dead.
__________________
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
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 04:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I think I'm with Mike here. In almost any case like the one described, I don't see a play being interfered with. Forget what happens after the ball contacts the offensive player - it's dead already. Kill it and place runners, rounding down as one of my guys would say.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 07:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
I agree, but sounds too simple without a discussion about intent. It would still be dead, runners going nowhere, but what about UC?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 07:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
I agree, but sounds too simple without a discussion about intent. It would still be dead, runners going nowhere, but what about UC?
Intent to do what?

If the umpire determines the player deprived the defense from a possible out, then it's interference whether there is intent or not.

If there is no possible play, then there is no INT regardless of intent.

Remember, a possible play by the defense is still umpire judgment.

I don't believe there is anything that has been noted here that would indicate an USC ruling.
__________________
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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 08:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
Intent to do what?

If the umpire determines the player deprived the defense from a possible out, then it's interference whether there is intent or not.

If there is no possible play, then there is no INT regardless of intent.

Remember, a possible play by the defense is still umpire judgment.

I don't believe there is anything that has been noted here that would indicate an USC ruling.
Just trying to anticipate where Scott is going with this.
If the contact with the player was intentionally defelecting into DBT whne there was a possible play, would that be UC?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 08:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally posted by JFA67
Quote:
Originally posted by Skahtboi
R1 on 1B. B2 hits a hot grounder to F5 who boots the ball, sending it in the direction of the open offensive dugout. (No wall or screening to protect the bench). Before the ball enters the dugout, the ball caroms off an offensive player not in the game and who is sitting at the edge of the dugout, then into the dugout. What do you rule?
I can't tell from your post if the offensive player caused the ball to roll into the dugout or not. Or if she was in or out of the dugout.
If she did then the runners stop at first and second.
If the ball would have entered the dugout anyway, apply book rule. R1 at 3rd, B2 at second.

I was thinking about NFHS rule 8-4-3i and if the ball actually would have made it into the dugout without contacting the O player. 2 bases from the time of the pitch p65-66 of the 2006 NFHS rule book. I can imagine a player not paying attention and getting hit as the ball enters the dugout.
I was going from that piont of view. IMO the umpires should have kept the players and coaches not involved in the game off the field. Preventative officiating.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 08:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
IF there's no play that might have been made by the defense
AND IF the offensive person was in live ball territory - I've got a blocked ball. The book tells me what to do with that. If there was a defensive play to be made, I've got interference. And - unrelated to the question - if that offensive person is a player, in live ball territory, I probably have a helmet violation and some other stuff to do.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 16, 2006, 10:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Just trying to anticipate where Scott is going with this.
If the contact with the player was intentionally defelecting into DBT whne there was a possible play, would that be UC?
Okay, but there is still no way I see UC here.
__________________
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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 17, 2006, 01:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Why 2 bases? Isn't this a case of the ball getting away from a defense player, not a throw?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 17, 2006, 07:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Why 2 bases? Isn't this a case of the ball getting away from a defense player, not a throw?
Because a fair batted ball which enters dead ball territory or becomes blocked is a two-base award. Contact with a fielder is not relevant.

Of course, this does not apply to a fair batted ball which leaves the playing field, in flight, in fair terrority.
__________________
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
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 17, 2006, 09:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
The player who was sitting at the edge of the dugout had her legs over/on the playing field. There was no defender around besides the one who deflected the ball when she booted the play.

The umpires at this game ruled interference, however, and called R1 out and placed B2 on 1B. I thought that this was an incorrect ruling at the time, as apparently most of you did as well. My thought, when questioned by one of the umpires working the game was the ball should have been dead immediately, with B2 placed at 1B and R1 at 2B.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 17, 2006, 10:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by Skahtboi
The umpires at this game ruled interference,
Some umpires should tattoo this to the inside of their eyelids...

"If there is no play, there is no interference."

Interference is always with a play, not with the ball, and not with a player (excepting, of course, silly rule interpretations on running lane violations).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 17, 2006, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by Skahtboi
The umpires at this game ruled interference,
Some umpires should tattoo this to the inside of their eyelids...

"If there is no play, there is no interference."

Interference is always with a play, not with the ball, and not with a player (excepting, of course, silly rule interpretations on running lane violations).
Right with you as usual, Dakota.

Right up until the last part... what did you mean by "(excepting, of course, silly rule interpretations on running lane violations)"? Interference on a RLV is still interference with a play. No play, no interference
__________________
"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
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 03:21pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1