The Official Forum - Ever seen the BR run into the 3rd baseman on a bunt up the 1st base line?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Ever seen the BR run into the 3rd baseman on a bunt up the 1st base line? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/45760-ever-seen-br-run-into-3rd-baseman-bunt-up-1st-base-line.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Major League game, actually. And the B/W picture is 60 years old, so what's the point of discussing that?

As far as the little ball discussion and "exceptions" stated by another poster, to me this is interference plain and simple no matter if it's baseball or softball. F5 is a protected fielder fielding a batted ball. What's the discussion?

While it may be INT, it isn't INT for the reason you offer. The player in the picture is not fielding a batted ball. The INT would be for interfering with a defender attempting to throw a ball (ASA 8.7.J.2).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Well, the assertion was made that we were moving down some little ball slippery slope....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

IMO, you are all headed back down the slippery slope that baseball uses to justify not making a call required by rule. ....If you keep trying to add another layer of exception, you might as well start calling little ball rules; and that is EXACTLY why softball made the rule as clear as it is, to STOP using little ball logic....

The two pictures, one from long ago and one from last week, illustrate two things: 1) MLB does NOT interpret interference according to the black-letter rule, and they never have (that is, it is not a slippery slope from the MLB perspective), and 2) If anything, MLB is moving (down or up... your choice) a slope to apply the interference rules MORE by the book, but still not completely by the book. There have been several "take out" plays this season that have been called as interference in MLB, so that when an 'old school" non-call happens (like the retro uni game ... as an aside, why on earth would the Astros ever bring back those fugly unis as retro... but I digress) it generates discussion among the BB umpires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Umpire judgement cannot be used to create policy that overrides the black and white of the rules; that privilege is limited to (for example) Dee Abrahamson in NCAA, Mary Struckhoff in NFHS, and Kevin Ryan or Craig Cress at ASA......

It seems to me that when supposed leaders are spouting and affirming something that is simply and totally wrong, it should be stated as such, not just offered as another part of a discussion, when part of our purpose for existence is to help educate. I know that some like to pose questions and offer positions to spur the thought process, but then the conversation needs to go back to the black and white, and those attempting to spur the thoughts should say so, rather than let the newbies think there is another possible answer.

Do you use a black and white rule book strike zone definition in a 10 and under rec game? Bet you don't...that's because we are allowed to use our judgement in determining the quality and level of player and adjust accordingly. I don't need written permission from those you named to do that. That's just one example where we stray away from black and white. There are others, too many to go into.

I have never purported myself to be an expert, that is why I ask questions for clarification when I don't quite understand an application of a rule...what's wrong with that? Can't I get educated as well as a newbie? If you go look at my first post it started off with a question...not a statement of fact.

Clearly my point is lost on you; and it wasn't addressed so much toward you as purporting to be an expert. Yet, the answer that applies to this situation has been stated and restated; and this just isn't a situation (the one in the original post, exactly as stated) that has gray. One might try to add multiple alternate scenarios just to try to find one where the answer is different, but not the original post, as stated, without assuming more.

But, carry, as you wish.