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 Tue Mar 20, 2007, 07:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Tony,

This isn't hard to understand. Only particular rules were changed. As was my point in discussing the proposed changes, the words "intent, intentional and intentionally" are merely words which offer guidance to the umpire, not the "be all to end all" definitives some believe they are.

And they are still used as a guide even though not included in the actual wording of the rule in all cases.
__________________
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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 20, 2007, 09:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
... As was my point in discussing the proposed changes, the words "intent, intentional and intentionally" are merely words which offer guidance to the umpire, not the "be all to end all" definitives some believe they are....
I've heard even umpires say things like "You better be able to prove it was intentional..." No, you've never had to prove anything. We're umpires officiating a softball game, not CSI preparing evidence for the prosecuting attorney. It always was and still is judgment. Maybe the new wording will be better down the road; for this year, I'm anticipating a few more "discussions" with coaches.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 20, 2007, 07:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3
Apologies

Alex - I misinterpreted your reply. There are quite a few "flamers" on these lists. I work about 125 HS, College and ASA games/year and see about 75 more. Consequently, I have an opportunity to watch other umpires work. It appears to me that many of our colleagues are extremely reluctant to call any act "intentional" unless it involves a push, shove, etc. For example - interference with a fielder about to receive a thrown ball - F2 throws to F4 with runners on 1st and 3rd, hoping to goad the runner on 3rd to break for the plate. Runner going from 1st to 2nd flattens the F4 just as she was about to receive the throw. Runner scores. F4 was 5ft or so inside the base path between 1st and 2nd. Umpire makes NO call. Not the "safe" mechanic indicating no violation. Nothing. Of course, the coach of the team on the field is wild. His reply - no "intent." Seemed to me that leaving the base path was a clear indication of her "intent" to interfere. Jeff BTW - my family is originally from Buren. We left in 1658, however. Went to a little place called New Amsterdam.
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
Can "FOUL" be made "FAIR"? PAT THE REF Baseball 60 Sat Feb 24, 2007 09:01pm
Intentional Foul Then a "T" Terrapins Fan Basketball 15 Sat Feb 17, 2007 06:28pm
Batter Interference or "Thats Nothin" oneonone Softball 5 Sun Jun 11, 2006 09:02pm
"Intentional" Walk blueump Softball 1 Wed May 31, 2006 10:28am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1