|
Sun Mar 03, 2002, 10:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Must of you are aware by now of the new ASA rules and the one that covers interference on a fly ball(fair or foul)that we now have the runner and the batter out. BUT some key words here on this play that most of you vets probably already got but this umpire didnt relize until I was rereading again tonight since it is too cold to do anything else is this EFFECT only takes place if the catch is so deemed ROUTINE and with ORDINARY EFFORT if not we use the old ruling which is Runner ruled out and strike on the batter covered in POE#31d. I will bet that this will cause some problems for awhile till everybody gets on the same page
Hopefully by typing this out I will remember it when it happens in one of my games Don 
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 09:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I find annoying is the inventing of new words to describe similar plays without explaning why there are new words. In this new 8-8-J-L EXCEPTION, we have,
...routine fly ball ... with ordinary effort... while in the old 1-INFIELD FLY, we have, ... fly ball ... with ordinary effort .... What does ROUTINE mean? What is the difference between a ROUTINE fly ball that can be caught with ordinary effort and a just plain fly ball that can be caught with ordinary effort? Did the rule writers intend to communicate some difference here, or were they just being sloppy wrt how prior rules have been worded? Does a ROUTINE fly ball include a bunt and line drive? Of course, there are other differences between an infield fly and the new exception (runners, reference to infielders, etc.), but I am wondering about the word ROUTINE.
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 12:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
OH YEAH
I should note on the above play when a runner interfers with a fielder on a FOUL fly ball that is not ruled ordinary the strike on the batter + the out ruled on the runner that interfers. I am assuming on a FAIR fly ball that a fielder is interfered with and is not ruled a ordinary play than we would award BR 1st and call the runner out. It may just be me but I can see this getting confusing to some when this will occur
JMT Don
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 12:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Try this...
Top of inning: R1 on 1B. B2 hits a "routine" fly ball that can be caught with "ordinary effort" by F4. R1 runs into F4; ball falls to the ground. I rule R1 out on interference; BR out on "routine - ordinary effort" rule.
Bottom of inning: R1 on 1B. B2 hits a fly ball with a low arch toward F3. R1 runs into F3 who is making a valiant effort to field the ball. I rule the fly ball was not "routine", so I call R1 out in interference and award BR 1B. Explanation to coach follows. I'm looking forward to it. 
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 01:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you guys/gals are making a bit too much of this change. You'll know what to call when you see it and you will tell the coaches the same thing you tell them when they question you on not calling a IF the landed near an infielder.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 01:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 I still wonder why they added "routine." Why not use the same wording as the IFR?
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 02:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 03:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There is always one in the crowd! Always trying to make things simple and take all the fun out!! Don
|
|
Mon Mar 04, 2002, 03:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Mike has pointed out the real reason for the verbage issues. Listening to the ASA gurus at National School and at local ASA clinics, everyone who had submitted a rule change wanted to talk about it - one guy from Texas, one from Georgia, and one from West Virginia.
Great people, but as Henry Pollard says, "I talk funny." Same as the tomato issue, Elaine.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
