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.

[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

[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.