|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 10:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok... I obviously need help here guys and gals....
Interference.... Obstruction... It's not about which is which... It's probably more about the subjectiveness of the call.. 1. B1 hits a long ball to right field.... F3 is watching F9 chase the ball out to the fence totally oblivious to everything else, but is standing in B1's runnning path. F3 does impede the progress of B1 as she rounds 1B on her way to 2B...... Obstruction 2. R1 on 1B. The delivery and R1 is on her way to 2B. B2 smacks a hard grounder to F4. Timing causes R1 and the ball to intersect over the base path and A.) R1 leaps over the ball to only avoid contact, but impedes the vision of F4, which causes her to lose sight of the ball and the ball get by F4. B.) The ball hits R1..... Intereference In any of the 3 cases above, none of the actions were intentional. They just played out that way. Why penalized or consider penalizing the situations.... I have seen all of these situations this season and I have a hard time dealing with them because I don't considered them intentional acts.... When the coaches want to comment, to me it's an "Oh Well" call... "Timing was bad coach, but it wasn't intentional..." What part of common sense am I missing here?
__________________
Chuck Lewis Ronan, MT Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he could be gone every weekend. 
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 11:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
In each of the examples the penalty is for "being dumb". F3 was dumb and got in the way of the runner - that's obstruction and there's a penalty. In the second play, that may or may not be interference - IF R1 does not break stride, that's probably a no call. In the other, R1 was dumb and did not correctly judge the path of the ball so as to avoid contact - that's interference and there's a penalty. Stuff happens and in these cases, the rules define what happens after the stuff happens. I don't think you're missing anything, Chuck, other than intentions do not matter in either of these examples. Most of the time we're working a game, intentions are completely irrelevant and we ignore them.
__________________
Steve M
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 11:30am
|
|||
|
|||
|
JC,
First things first, I don't consider play 2A to be interference. The runner was only doing what a runner is supposed to do, that is, get to the next base and avoid the ball, so unless F4 was hindered more than being momentarily blocked from seeing the ball, I have a no-call in that situation. As for play 1 and play 2B, they are what they are because the rules say they are and the rules say they are based on over 100 years of playing the game. When the sport of baseball (from which softball was derived) was in it's early days, it wasn't the kinder and gentler game that we know today. Play 1: Fielders who are not involved in the playing action are not allowed to hinder a runner in their attempt to advance on the bases. If F3 wants to watch the game, she should be sitting in the stands, otherwise she should doing something productive, but whateveer she is doing, she must stay out of the runner's way. In the early days of the sport, defensive player's would frequently position themselves in the runner's way as they attempted to run the bases. Nowadays that practice has been declared to be illegal. Play 2B: Runners are supposed to be trying to advance on batted balls, especially when they are forced, however they must do this without impeding the defense's attempt to retire them. In the early days of the game, cagey runners would time their advances to position themselves such that the ball would "accidentally" carom off of a calf or a thigh, thus allowing all the runners to advance safely. Clearly this was not in the spirit of fair play, so along came a rule to prevent it. Now since it is difficult to judge intent in all cases, the simplest thing to do was to rule that if an offensive player interfered with a batted ball before a fielder had a chance to play on it, then the runner had interfered with the defense's attempt. The rules makers realized that many times it is difficult to judge intent on a player's part and made it easier on us guys and gals in blue by removing intent as a factor in the call. As always the opinions expressed here are my pi-onions and shouldn't be stinking up anybody else's yard. SamC
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 01:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Other Chuck -
I can relate to your position. Here is a play I had on Monday: I am BU in C position with R1 on second, R2 on first. Ball hit just to the right of the pitcher, two outs, runners are off at contact. F1 just gets the tip of her glove on the ball, deflecting it toward F6. F6, seeing the ball has been deflected, moves forward to field the ball and runs into R1 going from second to third. I call interference on R1 for the third out. At the start of the next half inning, F4, who was the R1 that was out asked me about the call, so I explained that the pitcher was not considered an infielder for the purpose of the interference rule, and because of the deflection, she was at the wrong place at the wrong time. After the game, I gave the same explanation to the coach. Both were OK with the explanation. Everybody involved was doing what they were supposed to be doing, but because of the deflection, it led to an interference call. Just one of those "the way the ball bounces" calls.
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 01:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Second, there are not penalties for obstruction, just placing runners where they should have been had the defender not been so dumb. Interference, more often than not, is mostly unintentional, but always seems to rear it's ugly head every now and then. There are two teams on the field. Just because one team isn't on the ball doesn't mean you tilt the field to allow for their shortcomings at the expense of the other team. Common sense applies to umpiring much like the word consistant. Striving to be consistant does not make someone a better umpire, it just makes them consistant, good or bad. I often find that when someone refers to "just use common sense" it means their either do not know or disagree with the applicable rule and use the term as justification for their feelings. Consistency and common sense are positive traits, but are not valid substitutes for knowing and applying the given rules and mechanics when working a game. JMHO,
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 01:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since I don't have anything to do right now, I thought I would have to comment.
The Other Chuck, I am glad you were able to convince the runner and her coach why you called her out. That is the edge we, as umpires, have. The coaches usually don't have a clue. Unless the SS was in the position to receive the ball, as the runner hit her I personally believe you may have stole that out. Good for you. If I understand you, the SS was moving to field the ball. Was she 10 ft from the ball?? 5 ft?? or just starting to move in the direction of the deflected ball. If so you have obstruction, not interference. Now if the SS was in a position to field the ball, then you have interference. Shame on you MIKE [Edited by Del-Blue on Apr 4th, 2002 at 01:00 PM]
__________________
Bob Del-Blue NCAA, ASA, NFHS NIF
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 07:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Del-Blue,
Merely a guess on my part. Delaware home state and you know Mike R!!  Welcome to the board. glen
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain.
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 11:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
B. I do not know who Del-Blue is, but I might have an idea.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
