The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 02:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
"In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.
__________________
Tony Cannizzo
ASA/NFHS "

Tony, That's just plain wrong. Think about what you need for obstruction of a runner - the defense positioned in the way AND a runner that is affected by this positioning. Why would you need or want less in this case? A catcher's being in a certain place may expose them to a CO call, but just being there does not meet requirements - the batter's swing has to have been obstructed.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 861
Steve M.

I can appreciate that you don't agree with the rule. But I didn't write the rules. I just try to enforce them. I am going to give the authors of the rule some benefit of the doubt that these words didn't just accidentally creep into the book.

What if the catcher's feet were just an inch short of the point on home plate and the catcher's reach put the mitt out in front of the plate?

What if the catcher wasn't quite that far up, but prevented the pitch from striking the plate by reaching for it, where if she didn't catch it, it would have hit the plate?
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Steve M.

I can appreciate that you don't agree with the rule. But I didn't write the rules. I just try to enforce them. I am going to give the authors of the rule some benefit of the doubt that these words didn't just accidentally creep into the book.

What if the catcher's feet were just an inch short of the point on home plate and the catcher's reach put the mitt out in front of the plate?

What if the catcher wasn't quite that far up, but prevented the pitch from striking the plate by reaching for it, where if she didn't catch it, it would have hit the plate?
Tony, I believe you are misenforcing this rule. This rule allows you to call CO if the catcher is so far forward (over or in front of the plate) that he OBSTRUCTS the batter (with or without a swing). If the batter was merely taking the pitch - the batter was not obstructed from doing what they were going to do. The rule you quote does not mean that EVERY time the catcher leans out partially over the plate to catch the ball, it's OBS. It means that if the catcher does this AND OBSTRUCTS, it is OBS.
__________________
"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
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 02:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.
You are correct that CO "could" be ruled in this case. However, it does not say "should" be ruled. There is still an element missing, the batter swinging or attempting a swing. Without that element, you cannot have CO, any more than you can have OBS between two bases simply because the fielder is standing, without possession of the ball, in the basepath of the runner. This action by the fielder must cause the runner to do something, such as alter their path, that they wouldn't have done had the fielder not been there.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 03:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Tony, I believe you are misenforcing this rule. This rule allows you to call CO if the catcher is so far forward (over or in front of the plate) that he OBSTRUCTS the batter (with or without a swing). If the batter was merely taking the pitch - the batter was not obstructed from doing what they were going to do. The rule you quote does not mean that EVERY time the catcher leans out partially over the plate to catch the ball, it's OBS. It means that if the catcher does this AND OBSTRUCTS, it is OBS.
Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 03:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 382
If the catcher reaches over and catches the ball before it goes over the plate of course we have CO .
We cant have a strike because it never went in the strike zone .
If the batter swung and the catcher caught it before the batter had a chance to hit it then we have CO but you have to have good eyes .
If the catcher catches the ball in the strike zone waist high with no swing you have to call a strike .
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?
Tony, perhaps you are not understanding what is being said here. I'll try one more time...

The POE you keep relying on is NOT a rule. It is a POE. It is there to help interpret the rule. The conditions of the rule that it is elaborating on must still be met, namely, that the batter's attempt to hit the pitch was obstructed.

In particular, the final sentence you keep quoting has two other aspects to it that will help in properly applying it. The first I have already pointed out: it says "could be" not "shall be" or "is." "Could be" if the other parts are there, namely, that the batter's attempt at the pitch was obstructed.

The other aspect to that sentence that will help is the opening parenthetical where it tells you when it applies: "(Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch where stealing is allowed)" IOW, the POE is telling you that if, in your judgment, the catcher reached in to grab the pitch before the batter could hit it when something like a hit and run or squeeze play was on, then CO could be ruled.

Merely having the mitt over the plate is not, in and of itself, CO. The "obstruction" part must still be there.
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 03:57pm.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 06, 2006, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by debeau
If the catcher reaches over and catches the ball before it goes over the plate of course we have CO .
We cant have a strike because it never went in the strike zone.
This is a stronger situation that the one we have been discussing. We've been discussing a catcher who places her mitt over the plate, not one who reaches in front of it.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 07, 2006, 07:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Tony, perhaps you are not understanding what is being said here. I'll try one more time...
Tom, I asked a Yes/No question. I'll try one more time...

Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 07, 2006, 09:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Tom, I asked a Yes/No question. I'll try one more time...

Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?
This gets interesting, wrt CO, if the batter is near the front of the box, say on a drag bunt or a slap, and F2 moved forward as well. If F2 remains behind the batter, not obstructing the batter's attempt at the pitch, but catches the pitch before it crosses the plate, that is not CO. But what is it? Probably a ball. If you mean F2 is ahead of both the plate and the batter, the that would be CO, since the batter must be given the opportunity to hit the ball.

Maybe you have been visualizing something different from me in this discussion. I've been visualizing the catcher still behind the batter, reaching over the plate. The batter is doing what the batter does, without regard to the catcher. That is not CO merely because the catcher has moved her mitt over the plate.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 08, 2006, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Maybe you have been visualizing something different from me in this discussion. I've been visualizing the catcher still behind the batter, reaching over the plate. The batter is doing what the batter does, without regard to the catcher. That is not CO merely because the catcher has moved her mitt over the plate.
My visualization was from a game situation I had just this past week:
The batter was up in the box,
The catcher's feet were forward of the back corners of the batter's boxes,
When the catcher had set up her target, her mitt was over the plate,
I held up the pitch, instructed her to move back, which she did without incident,

My comment was that she could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.

Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)

The last few posts are into the "what-if" scenarios which bring the rule into play. Different scenarios have different visualizations.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 08, 2006, 10:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 120
Some thoughts from me:
1. no REASONABLE illegal pitch on a situation like the OP
2. better to say to the catcher 'please go back'
3. it is good to say that to the catcher even if experienced and/or in high level game
4. AGREE with tcannizzo: if a pitched ball cannot cross homeplate I have a 'ball'

All this said... I still have problems with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate. Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)
Maybe due to language problem, maybe I loose something... please explain it again. What I understand is that there is a POE (that is NOT on my Rulebook) stating CO could be call.
What I understand is... CO could be called IF a REAL obstruction occurs.
What am I missing here?


Grazie
__________________
Antonella
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 08, 2006, 10:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonella
Maybe due to language problem, maybe I loose something... please explain it again. What I understand is that there is a POE (that is NOT on my Rulebook) stating CO could be call.
What I understand is... CO could be called IF a REAL obstruction occurs.
What am I missing here?

Grazie
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)
{TC} POE 8... The umpire's request for the catcher to move farther away from the batter ot avoid injury or obstruction should always be obeyed. This would prevent the following to occur.


(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.
{TC} This was my "editorial comment" about the reasoning for why the catcher must stay within the confines of the catcher's box. Clearly the wording on the CO is weaker than the requirement for the catcher to obey the umpire in moving back.

__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 08, 2006, 05:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, [U]have not acknowledged it)
Of maybe some just believe that your view is a matter of being over-officious.

Quote:
(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.
That's not true. CO can be called ONLY if the catcher's action(s) hindered or impeded the batter from hitting the ball. The location of that ball is irrelevant.
__________________
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
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 09, 2006, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
My visualization was from a game situation I had just this past week:
The batter was up in the box,
The catcher's feet were forward of the back corners of the batter's boxes,
When the catcher had set up her target, her mitt was over the plate,
I held up the pitch, instructed her to move back, which she did without incident,
In my view, given the highlighted part, you had no justification for instructing the catcher to move back. This cather's position is legal in ASA. She is at risk of CO if the batter moves back, but that is her business, not yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
My comment was that she could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.
And, I completely disagree with this statement. You have not provided any justification for this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)
No, "we" did not. You are relying on a POE (not a rule), where the underlying conditions of the rule which the POE pertains to have not happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
The last few posts are into the "what-if" scenarios which bring the rule into play. Different scenarios have different visualizations.
I was attempting to figure out how you could be taking the stand you are taking. Can you get away with what you did (asking the F2 to move back)? Of course. Did you have sufficient justification in the situation you have described above, according to the rules, to ask the F2 to move back? No, not in my view. This is compounded by the fact that what you have stated to be CO is, in fact, not CO.

Could you have gotten away with calling having the mitt over the plate (not in front of the plate) when the batter IS in front of the plate as CO? Maybe, but you probably would have gotten the opportunity to explain your call to a knowledgable coach, especially if you did this as you threatened the catcher you would - with a belt high take. Heck, this is not even keeping the ball from entering the strike zone, since by definition the ball is already in the strike zone when caught by the catcher.
__________________
Tom
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Age limits?? Nate1224hoops Basketball 5 Fri Mar 03, 2006 03:30pm
The Nature and Limits of a Fumble assignmentmaker Basketball 9 Wed Feb 08, 2006 03:37pm
time limits bethsdad Softball 17 Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:50pm
Teams making up their own time limits Bluefoot Softball 3 Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:45am
Verbals out of Limits Ref Daddy Basketball 31 Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:42pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1