|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Scott It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Tony |
|
|||
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 . |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?
__________________
Tony |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
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:
What I understand is... CO could be called IF a REAL obstruction occurs. What am I missing here? Grazie
__________________
Antonella |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |