More What's The Calls

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by FullCount

From Scenario 2 in the OP:

"Prior to next pitch, Defense appeals R1 not tagging up at 3B, and ump gives an out to end the inning. Does the score of the trailing R2 stand? Should R1 have been awarded 3B having not "re-possessed" 1B prior to the dead ball?"

Was the second reference to R1, in the last sentence, in error?

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

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

2. R1 at 3B, R2 at 2B, R3 at 1B, 1 out. [...] F4 [...] overthrows F3 and ball enters dugout.
R3 scores, followed by R2 on the two base advance. R1 is awarded 3B.

Originally Posted by FullCount

Maybe there's a source of confusion here.

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 whiskers_ump 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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

(paraphrasing) go back to baseball

Ouch. Flamed anyway. $Diety forbid that softball have anything to do with baseball.

Respectfully,
-CB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Ouch. Flamed anyway. $Diety forbid that softball have anything 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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

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

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.

[wadeintothem]

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.

1. R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, 1 out. B1 squares to bunt. F3 and F5 charge home as F4 and F6 head to their respective corner bases. B1 pulls bat back and hits pop fly towards 2B. Pitcher is closest fielder to batted ball, but cannot get to it before it lands near the 2B bag. R1 and R2 stay put as 3B coach yells for infield fly, but FU does not call it. F1 grabs ball, tags R1 and then steps on 2B for the force of R2, ending the inning. Correct call?

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.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

1. Obviously baseball's notation system is better; however, that is not the system used in softball so that fight means nothing.

Obviously?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by SRW

Obviously?

[ronald]

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

[youngump]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

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

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.

[ronald]

thanks.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.)

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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.


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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.


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