Yes, imho. Not only that, the previous two sentences read:


I agree. I doubt R3 is passing runners, but maybe that's the OP's scenario. OTOH, it's easy to designate runners by her base at TOP. This <b>whiskers_ump</b> has done, apparently unintentionally. That's the point: it's easy to designate runners by the base at TOP. So easy that mistakes happen.

Before I get flamed, let me say I fully understand the leading runner notation.

Ouch. Flamed anyway. $Diety forbid that softball have <i>anything</i> to do with baseball.

Respectfully,
-CB

No, I think it would be the other way around since softball more resembles the game of Rounders, the game from which baseball was "invented".

Designating the offensive player by the order in which they became active in that inning allows for continuity throughout any scenario. Your method does not.

That right there is full justification for flaming over your (ahem) "contribution" to this thread. You are clearly trolling here. No one here invented the softball notation, and you did not invent the baseball notation. We use the notation of the sport being discussed. To come there and troll about notation is silly and obviously merely intended to spark response.

In summary, go away.

1. Obviously baseball's notation system is better; however, that is not the system used in softball so that fight means nothing. Every test, case play, rule discussion, rule book, pamphlet, clinic, and leaflet uses the same notation system.. so discussing that is meaningless. It is consistent, understandable, and the way softball does it. Get used to it and over it.

2. No its probably not. This is the exact intent of IF is to prevent the easy double play. If a infielder can simply pick the ball up and make an easy weak sauce DP, then it probably can be considered "ordinary effort" to catch it. The IF should have been declared. Why? On an infield fly ball, the runners are holding. The rule is designed to protect them because they must hold.

Obviously?

:D ;)

I find scenario one to be quite interesting because it focus on the position of the infielders and how their position affects an infield fly call or not.

If you make a call based on the position of the fielders before they break on the showing bunt and judged that the ball could have been caught by ordinary effort, then you would have an infield fly call.

If you are to wait and see if infielders change position up until the ball is batted, then you would not have an infield fly in scenario one.

Thoughst and guidance for ASA?

Thanks, Ron

Intent or not, by rule this is not an IF, because the only fielder nearby could not catch it with ordinary effort. Now, there's plenty of HTBT on this play, but as described the home plate umpire judged that the pitcher couldn't catch it. Doesn't matter how easy the double play is after that judgement. (Or how hard the double play if the judgement goes the other way.)
________
MARIJUANA SEED

The infielder's position is irrelevant. The rule simply requires that an infielder be able to catch the batter ball with ordinary effort. No where is there any requirement or inference to the fielder's position other than it must be stationed in a position to defend the area of the infield.

thanks.

Doesnt matter that they didnt catch it...

Only matters that it is judged that it "could be caught with ordinary effort".

Thats exactly what you should judge on this play.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I had: how easy the resultant double play is doesn't matter if I judge they simply could not have caught it.

You said, 'Only matters that it is judged that it "could be caught with ordinary effort".'

Those read the same to me.
________
How to roll blunts

Fix your judgment. That call should have been made from jump street.

The excuse you are making is the what you have to fall back on when the coach crawls up your but for not calling IF in an obvious to everyone on earth IF situation, thus costing him lead runners and a double play.

Youre supposed to learn from that though and next time call it so this goofy stuff dont happen. Thats why the rule is there.

I'm not a coach, I dont need the "yeah um I um didnt judge it to be able to um be caught with ordinary effort coach duh george. Yeah uh *cough *cough lets play ball now coach."

You didnt even see it the play and your judgements goofed up on it. :D


Havent you ever had this exact play, where you goofed up and didnt call it "ordinary effort blah blah"? I have. You learn from that.

This is what you do.. Less than two, pop fly.. any normal IF ball, you call it.

I think I see what you're trying to say. Obviously you could use this as a cover. That's not what I'm trying to say.

In the OP, the runners shouldn't have needed to hold because it should have been as obvious to them as it was to the umpire that the pitcher wasn't going to get this ball. The easy double play results from this not from the umpire having bad judgment.
________
Laguna Bay II Condominium