The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 204
Contact at 1B when F3 running to bag

I have had this happen several times already this year on ground balls to F3 where F3 when racing to beat the runner to 1B will cross over the bag and there will be a collision between F3 and BR. I have just been calling it a "train wreck", but since it seems to be happening often I am wondering if I am missing a call here.

Any thoughts?
__________________
Travis
ASA Umpire
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 02:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Don't know what else you could call it. BR is running to orange bag, following his allowed path, and has no obligation to do anything other than not interfere on the white bag. Once F3 beats BR to the base, BR is a retired runner, and you have to have intent to have interference on a retired runner.

I can't see penalizing the offense because F3 can't run to the base without crossing into the BR's expected (and required) path). Only way I see a call is if F3 and BR make contact before the base; in that case, we have a collision with a defensive player with the ball and a BR; BR must slide or otherwise be accountable to avoid interference.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 04:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzme415
I have just been calling it a "train wreck"...
Calling safe or out will probably be better.

Just kidding. I agree that a trainwreck is about all you could call it.

Reminds me of a umpire clinician that once mentioned in jest that on the next bang-bang play we had we should just call, "TIE!" and let the team's figure out what to do.
__________________
Dan
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 10:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
Calling safe or out will probably be better.

Just kidding. I agree that a trainwreck is about all you could call it.

Reminds me of a umpire clinician that once mentioned in jest that on the next bang-bang play we had we should just call, "TIE!" and let the team's figure out what to do.
That goes against my telling them that there is no such animal as a TIE.
__________________
Joe Herzer
Dallas, TX DSUA
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 10:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodan55
That goes against my telling them that there is no such animal as a TIE.
Aaahhh....should we go there?
__________________
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
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 08:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Don't know what else you could call it. BR is running to orange bag, following his allowed path, and has no obligation to do anything other than not interfere on the white bag. Once F3 beats BR to the base, BR is a retired runner, and you have to have intent to have interference on a retired runner.

I can't see penalizing the offense because F3 can't run to the base without crossing into the BR's expected (and required) path). Only way I see a call is if F3 and BR make contact before the base; in that case, we have a collision with a defensive player with the ball and a BR; BR must slide or otherwise be accountable to avoid interference.
"Intent" isn't necessary to call interference on a retired runner.
__________________
"Not all heroes have time to pose for sculptors...some still have papers to grade."
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Now we are back to the old question about whether a retired runner or an "about to be retired" runner needs to evaporate to avoid contact.
__________________
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 Fri May 12, 2006, 10:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBits
"Intent" isn't necessary to call interference on a retired runner.
Why not? .... (extra, superfluous, text so my reply is not ejected for being too short...)
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 10:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBits
"Intent" isn't necessary to call interference on a retired runner.
Speaking ASA

That would depend on what form of interference occured. If a thrown ball, there must be intent.
__________________
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 11:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA

That would depend on what form of interference occured. If a thrown ball, there must be intent.
My point exactly.
__________________
"Not all heroes have time to pose for sculptors...some still have papers to grade."
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 11:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBits
My point exactly.
Exactly? A thrown ball is only one. Also, intent is required for a retired runner interfering with a defender's opportunity to make a play on another runner. What form did you have in mind where intent is not required that applies to the situation being discussed in this thread?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 02:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 204
I'm going to have a hard time getting intent on a play like this unless the BR veers into the fielder. If the BR is running within the confines of the rules trying to get to 1B before the fielder, it is the fielder who in my opinion is responsible for the contact for coming across the bag.
__________________
Travis
ASA Umpire
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Contact Please ? debeau Softball 0 Sun Jun 12, 2005 02:35am
NFL - down by contact jack015 Football 1 Thu Jan 01, 2004 01:47pm
BOdy Contact SteveRef702 Basketball 10 Wed Jan 16, 2002 03:37pm
Looking for a contact MOFFICIAL Basketball 3 Sat Aug 18, 2001 09:14pm
contact Dave Birch Volleyball 3 Mon Nov 20, 2000 06:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1