Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him.

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

[topper]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

No rule is ever a good rule unless you can use it to make children cry. Sprawled on the floor. While laughing.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

[shakes head slowly]

Originally Posted by topper

Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

[shakes head slowly]

Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.
________
Wellbutrin lawsuit settlements

[SethPDX]

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

What the hell is it with this thread? Does no one read what is actually posted?

If the ruling was interference, the player causing the INT is to be ruled out. We understand that INT probably should not have been called. However, it was and the ruling was upheld. The penalty for INT by a batter is that the batter is ruled out, NOT THE RUNNER. All runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT.

And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

You know, sometimes you are so full of crap irish. Why is that? Why are you built that way? As a state UIC you have potential.. and then, you come up with your BS when you have no argument. Stick to the facts.

I favor the rule as it is and have fended off your idiotic childish vitrol since. Do you have argument that is not vitrol? 15th innning and lay out the catcher.. that is so lame you should be ashamed of yourself to be using it as your banner argument for your little lame rule change.

Spare me your handwringing about the children and tell me why the heck I need an out if the defender does have the ball and potentially not even close to having the ball? A punitive out that every skinny little idiot 3B coach wants and argues for.. but doesnt know the rule... every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way.

its obs and you are whimping wanting an out for a little tap.

Thats the point of the rule.

We dont need an out and we can already eject them if it reaches that level.

[topper]

Originally Posted by youngump

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.

Actually, my point is that the ruling was incorrect, forget about judgement. While I can do little about a partner missing calls, I will not allow my partner to kick a rule. Both umpires take the blame for this. The icing on the cake is the UIC upholding the ruling. All this happening at a National? Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

[NCASAUmp]

I'm actually for this rule, which should be no surprise to anyone who's read my posts in the past. I do not and have not ever liked the concept of allowing a player to score when they have flagrantly thumbed his/her nose at the rules and safety precautions. I admit I call mostly rec league, and this is where I can easily see this happening. While these rules are intended for championship play only, the players and coaches are still just amateurs (isn't that the first letter in "ASA"?), and we all have to go to work the next morning. Intentionally laying out a catcher (or any player, for that matter) has no place anywhere in softball. Period.

This proposed rule change simply adds an additional penalty towards something that is already illegal: flagrant and unnecessary contact. It reinforces the concept of fair play and serves as an extra reminder to players that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Let me toss out another twist in this argument. If a player acts in a grossly unsportsmanlike manner, then is subsequently allowed to score, it can be construed as benefitting the team at fault, something that was once explicitly forbidden by rule (yet now, I can't seem to find it).

So yes, I do have a problem with the current rule as it is written, and I would gladly accept this proposed rule change.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way...

So, wade, if this happens as you've described it and the F2 DOES have the ball, you call crash interference?

No? Didn't think so. So why would you call it when the player does NOT have the ball?

BTW, Mike, if this change is approved, remind those who see to such things that RS 13 will need a re-write, especially RS 13-G.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, wade, if this happens as you've described it and the F2 DOES have the ball, you call crash interference?

No? Didn't think so. So why would you call it when the player does NOT have the ball?

BTW, Mike, if this change is approved, remind those who see to such things that RS 13 will need a re-write, especially RS 13-G.

I dont worry about me Dakota.. one thing I'm good at is figuring out the best we not to OOO this BS to death.

I worry about the rejects who stop the game to make the left fielder tuck in the back of their shirt... while I'm standing their embarrassed to be on the same field with them.

these are the ilk that suddenly will take this too far.

[Dakota]

Good point. However, I doubt Mike is one of those...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You know, sometimes you are so full of crap irish. Why is that? Why are you built that way? As a state UIC you have potential.. and then, you come up with your BS when you have no argument. Stick to the facts.

I favor the rule as it is and have fended off your idiotic childish vitrol since. Do you have argument that is not vitrol? 15th innning and lay out the catcher.. that is so lame you should be ashamed of yourself to be using it as your banner argument for your little lame rule change.

Spare me your handwringing about the children and tell me why the heck I need an out if the defender does have the ball and potentially not even close to having the ball? A punitive out that every skinny little idiot 3B coach wants and argues for.. but doesnt know the rule... every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way.

its obs and you are whimping wanting an out for a little tap.

Thats the point of the rule.

We dont need an out and we can already eject them if it reaches that level.

WTF are you reading? Do you need a new set of glasses or contacts?

I challenge you to note where I brought "children" into this discussion. Don't waste your time, it's not there.

BTW, do you mean "vitriol"? No, I don't believe I was being virulent at all. Just gave you an example of what could happen. As noted, I don't know what words are on your screen, but it certainly is nothing to which you are responding. You talk as if there is some great move to micromanage the game when all this is nothing more than establishing a penalty for a non-vigilent or angry runner that takes the matter of the game into account and not just the offender's participation.

The sad part is that we all know you visit multiple boards and have responded to coaches who outright state that they instruct their runners to collide with defenders, yet you think this is a non-issue.

Also, an ejection isn't going to have much affect if that player just scored the winning run?

I'm done with this. I'll see a couple of you Saturday. Have a safe trip.