OU vs AU

[Dholloway1962]

Watched the Okla/AZ game 1 Super Regional. Couple of interesting plays.

BR (OU) got beaned in the back of the head (think it was D3K?) before reaching
1B. PU called dead ball and called BR out for being out of the lane, which she clearly was. Sent R1 (on 2B) back to 2B.

Other was a throw from cather (OU) to 2B where R1 (AZ) was caught sleeping getting back to 2B. Threw her out. U1 called OBS and awarded her 2B. IMO, granted I see crimson and creme, thought the runner had a clear lane back to the bag as 2B was straddling bag. Thought it shouldn't have been called

Thought they went 50/50 on those. Otherwise, the crew was pretty solid. Almost like they weren't there, the way it should be!!

Anyone else have an opinion that saw the plays?

[orangeump]

why do people say that R1 is at second base.

why not call that runner R2?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by orangeump

why do people say that R1 is at second base.

why not call that runner R2?

That is standard softball nomenclature; see the front of a casebook, either NFHS or ASA. Runners are R; the runner furthest advanced is R1, second most advanced is R2.

Yes, it is different in baseball; that doesn't make it more accurate, just different.

It is possible that R2 is at second; if R1 is at third!!

[orangeump]

thanks for telling me that, I often wondered why it was so weird.

It's just confusing and difficult to understand when you start a play;
with R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd R3 at first.

Doesnt it make more sense just to say R and the number of the base they start at?

bah, I am done. Thanks.

[JEL]

Originally Posted by orangeump

thanks for telling me that, I often wondered why it was so weird.

It's just confusing and difficult to understand when you start a play;
with R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd R3 at first.

Doesnt it make more sense just to say R and the number of the base they start at?

bah, I am done. Thanks.

I always translate (in my head) "R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd R3 at first" as bases loaded, and call them runner at 2B, and so on. I don't have to think as hard that way!

I've wondered before why the nomenclature can't be the same for both sports.

Per the OP, I watched bits and pieces of the game didn't see the plays in question, but thought the officiating was good. The strike zone seemed wide outside, and real tight inside but I wasn't set up too well in the slot! Zone was consistant.

Were either of these calls questioned by the coaching staff?

[DNTXUM P]

Other was a throw from cather (OU) to 2B where R1 (AZ) was caught sleeping getting back to 2B. Threw her out. U1 called OBS and awarded her 2B. IMO, granted I see crimson and creme, thought the runner had a clear lane back to the bag as 2B was straddling bag. Thought it shouldn't have been called

Watching the pick off at 2B, at first, I thought the 1B ump made a great call. Watching the replay, and in slow motion, it appeared that the ball beat the runner back to the bag. The fielder clearly was blocking the bag without the ball, though, and while I did not see any hesitation or deviation, the camera angles were not the best.. The 1B ump had the best look. He must have seen some sort of deviation or contact prior fielder receiving the ball. Just curious what others saw on this play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by orangeump

thanks for telling me that, I often wondered why it was so weird.

It's just confusing and difficult to understand when you start a play;
with R1 at 3rd, R2 at 2nd R3 at first.

Doesnt it make more sense just to say R and the number of the base they start at?

bah, I am done. Thanks.

Isn't it just as weird to have #3 before #2 of #1? The softball manner of labeling players also permit a multi-play scenario without redesignation of the active runners. It also allows for a presumption of outs (if one were to go that far). For example, if you told me R1 & R3 were at the corners with one out, I would recon R2 was retired at 2B for the out and B4 was the batter. However, that is a stretch as scenarios are not usually set up in such a manner.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by orangeump

why do people say that R1 is at second base.

why not call that runner R2?

Because I didn't invent the player designation systems of either sport, so just as I don't refer to the players as Ax, Bz (as in football), I don't use baseball nomenclature when describing a softball play.

I know baseball guys think everything about baseball is superior to anything about softball, but that is their problem, not mine.

The softball designation system for runners is just as logical as the baseball system. It is not confusing or hard to learn. What is confusing is using the wrong system (softball for baseball plays, and vice versa).

[shipwreck]

NCAA still has the "about to receive" so why was OBS called? Didn't see the play, just wondering. Dave

[greymule]

Saw the game but didn't see that particular play. Doesn't sound like OBS to me, either. Even under ASA's stricter rule, if the runner didn't slow down or alter her stride or have to avoid, there's no OBS. From the description, it's hard to believe this qualified under NCAA rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

Saw the game but didn't see that particular play. Doesn't sound like OBS to me, either. Even under ASA's stricter rule, if the runner didn't slow down or alter her stride or have to avoid, there's no OBS. From the description, it's hard to believe this qualified under NCAA rules.

Just had a non-call at the plate in game two. The talking heads kicked the rule (shocker ).

Before you tell me they still have the about-to-receive, I am very much aware of that. The talking heads noted that the catcher (Balko) has every right to block the plate as long as the ball is on the way. Well, I don't believe that is true unless the NCAA completely changed the interpretation of the rule.

Even with that allowance, watching a shot from behind the runner, the umpire could (not "should") have called OBS as the runner seemed to have changed her path long before the ball even got close to the catcher. But the umpire isn't going to see that from his position and the ball did get to the catcher prior to the runner passing behind her. Please note, I'm not questioning the umpire's call, just an observation how much of a difference there is with the about-to-receive allowance vs. possession requirement.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Good interference call on OU. Hit and run and the batter clearly stepped out of the box. Catcher played the part and the umpire made the call.

Talking head is making an excuse saying it wasn't intentional. Idiot.

Another great comment. The ball must go over the bag in fair territory to be fair.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Good interference call on OU. Hit and run and the batter clearly stepped out of the box. Catcher played the part and the umpire made the call.

Talking head is making an excuse saying it wasn't intentional. Idiot.

Another great comment. The ball must go over the bag in fair territory to be fair.

It was INT all the way. The talking heads have been blowing it all day long. No real surprise as we mention this stuff every year. Earlier, if you were listening, though I don't remember which games (may have been AZ/OU game 2), there was a "foul into the glove of the catcher," rather than a foul tip. And then, on another play there was a hard shot to F6 that she couldn't handle that riccocheted to F4. The talking head said "the flip to second was just a little late."

[greymule]

The talking heads noted that the catcher (Balko) has every right to block the plate as long as the ball is on the way. Well, I don't believe that is true . . .

It is not true. "The ball is on the way" could refer to a throw that has just left an outfielder's hand and is two full seconds or more from its intended target. NCAA mentions "about to receive" several times, which I and other umps I work with have taken to mean "in the immediate act of fielding" a throw, very similar to OBR.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule

Saw the game but didn't see that particular play. Doesn't sound like OBS to me, either. Even under ASA's stricter rule, if the runner didn't slow down or alter her stride or have to avoid, there's no OBS. From the description, it's hard to believe this qualified under NCAA rules.

Saw the play and watched each replay plus a couple of my own DVR replays. No one watching on TV could see the runner before her last step when the fielder already was "about to receive". If the runner was impeded before being on camera, good call. If not, the umpire is human.