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 Thu Apr 10, 2008, 03:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
...Logical or not, the between base provision seems to trump all else.
This sounds suspiciously like the discussion some months back about a BR hitting a fly ball into the outfield and being obstructed on the way to 1B and the fly ball was caught. The ASA ruling was, "yeah, well, but we don't want it called that way"... or words to that effect. The NFHS ruling was the same result (BR out) but was illogical as it tried to warp the rules to make it sound like they applied. At least the ASA's "because we say so" was direct. (All of this from memory, and I'm too lazy to go back and look it up.)

I suspect, following the logic ASA used before in ruling that the "between bases" provision does NOT trump all after all, they will want the runner ruled out for a base running infraction not caused by the obstruction. But, who knows?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 10, 2008, 03:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
This sounds suspiciously like the discussion some months back about a BR hitting a fly ball into the outfield and being obstructed on the way to 1B and the fly ball was caught. The ASA ruling was, "yeah, well, but we don't want it called that way"... or words to that effect. The NFHS ruling was the same result (BR out) but was illogical as it tried to warp the rules to make it sound like they applied. At least the ASA's "because we say so" was direct. (All of this from memory, and I'm too lazy to go back and look it up.)

I suspect, following the logic ASA used before in ruling that the "between bases" provision does NOT trump all after all, they will want the runner ruled out for a base running infraction not caused by the obstruction. But, who knows?
Right, I should have remembered. But that was more obvious.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 10, 2008, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
This sounds suspiciously like the discussion some months back about a BR hitting a fly ball into the outfield and being obstructed on the way to 1B and the fly ball was caught. The ASA ruling was, "yeah, well, but we don't want it called that way"... or words to that effect. The NFHS ruling was the same result (BR out) but was illogical as it tried to warp the rules to make it sound like they applied. At least the ASA's "because we say so" was direct. (All of this from memory, and I'm too lazy to go back and look it up.)

I suspect, following the logic ASA used before in ruling that the "between bases" provision does NOT trump all after all, they will want the runner ruled out for a base running infraction not caused by the obstruction. But, who knows?

Aaaaahhhhh......not really! ASA's response was that an obstruction ruling was to nullify the affect of the violation and award any bases to which the OBS runner would have made it had OBS not occurred. Well, on a caught fly ball, the BR would not have reached any base safely had the OBS not occurred. See the May 2007 ASA Rule Clarifications

http://www.asasoftball.com/umpires/c...s_2007_may.asp
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 10, 2008, 04:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Yeah, I remember now. The problem with that is that the "between the bases" clause DOES trump the "nullify the effect" purpose everywhere else.

Example, a runner attempts to steal 2B, and the throw to F6, who is covering the base, has her dead, but she is obstructed by F4. The result is not to nullify the effect of the obstruction (since that would be to rule her out at 2B, which would have been the result had there been no obstruction), but to invoke the "between the bases" rule and place her back on 1B.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 10, 2008, 05:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Yeah, so you put her back at home. But that gets awfully annoying for F1 and F2 and the batter. And eventually you end up calling her out for leaving early.
________
Wellbutrin Settlement

Last edited by youngump; Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 06:10pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 10, 2008, 05:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
Yeah, so you put her back at home. But that gets awfully annoying for F1 and F2 and the batter. And eventually you end up calling her out for leaving early.
Funny, but what about a BR who has bunted, F5 fields the ball, throws to F4 covering 1B and has BR dead, except she has been obstructed by F3 who was charging as the batter showed bunt. "between the bases" trumps and she is placed on 1B. Without obs, BR out. With obs, BR on 1B.
__________________
Tom
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
I Love Fiba!!!! ref18 Basketball 1 Sat Jan 20, 2007 03:23pm
I Love This Job.... brandan89 Basketball 13 Tue Jun 07, 2005 08:12am
Why I love AAU ball..... DrakeM Basketball 9 Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:15pm
I love this job!!! Matt S. Basketball 10 Wed Dec 13, 2000 11:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1