The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 12:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Play

NFHS rules.

Bases loaded, no outs. SS playing more towards 3B than halfway between 3B and 2B and
several steps behind both 3B and 2B. Batter hits a hard ground ball towards the left side of SS,
who makes a play on the ball, but it goes off her glove in and towards 2B, beyond a step and
reach. SS still bent over is hit by the runner advancing from 2B to 3B and goes to the ground.
All runners reach safely to the next base.

What would you as base umpire call on the play, if anything?

Collision was not intentional, SS left the game due to dizziness and headache.
__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 12:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 440
nothing in all rule sets.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 12:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
Agree with the above, its a no call.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 03:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskers_ump View Post
Collision was not intentional...
That qualifier right there lets the runner off the hook.

I believe that FED is unique in that a runner can be guilty of interference with a fielder even if that fielder is not fielding a batted ball or making a throw. Didn't they modify their interference rule a couple of years ago (rule 8-6-10d)?

I would have to do some digging to try and find the interpretations that were issued back when the rule was changed. My recollection is that they enforced the idea that a fielder could just be standing there, totally not involved in any play, and if the runner ran into her in such a way that it could have been avoided you would have interference- as long as the contact was judged as "intentional". That the runner ran into the fielder (not maliciously) when she could have avoided the contact equated to "intent".

It is stated that the contact by the runner on this play was not intentional. I would take that to mean that the runner did not have an ample opportunity to avoid the fielder in her path, making the contact unavoidable.

Now, a question: For those that say they would have "nothing" on this play, were you so focused on the fact that the runner did nothing wrong that you totally forgot about obstruction?

Last edited by BretMan; Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:51am.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 07:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Crete, Nebraska
Posts: 734
Send a message via ICQ to shipwreck
Since NFHS doesn't allow a "train wreck" I would call obstruction. Dave
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskers_ump View Post
several steps behind both 3B and 2B. Batter hits a hard ground ball towards the left side of SS,


Collision was not intentional,
I'm trying to reconcile these two comments. How or why was the runner that far off the baseline? Starting at 2B and the defender playing back eliminates the need to start off to 3B going behind the fielder. The OP does not give any indication the SS stepped up to the ball, but to her side.

What am I missing, Glen?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
This is OBS.... play was made by fielder, who muffed it beyond what is allowed (step and a reach) and was in the way of the runner (who then obtained next base.. thereby releasing the OBS) unless you judged the runner to have chased down and caused the collision... but i digress. My question is ... does she need a M.D. note to be allowed to play in the next game? (I would lean towards ...yes)

just my 2 pennies.
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.

Last edited by CajunNewBlue; Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:29am.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 440
I will agree with calling obs. Since runners reached the next base safely it is just putting up the arm, saying obstruction, then dropping the arm. If you want to pick the nit, it is obstruction, not 'nothing'.

But it really isn't a call, it's just a statement, to let everyone you know it happened.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
For those that say they would have "nothing" on this play, were you so focused on the fact that the runner did nothing wrong that you totally forgot about obstruction?
Obstruction was my first thought.
__________________
NFHS softball, ASA FP & SP
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by outathm View Post
nothing in all rule sets.
NCAA its a warning.... next one gets her a 7/or whatever is left of the game inning timeout. assuming NCAA is considered a "rule set"
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 09:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue View Post
NCAA its a warning.... next one gets her a 7/or whatever is left of the game inning timeout. assuming NCAA is considered a "rule set"
Please explain this to us. Who gets the warning, and what for?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I'm trying to reconcile these two comments. How or why was the runner that far off the baseline? Starting at 2B and the defender playing back eliminates the need to start off to 3B going behind the fielder. The OP does not give any indication the SS stepped up to the ball, but to her side.

What am I missing, Glen?
My Bad,

SS did step towards the ball putting her into runners line.

Just when you think you got everything covered, you find that you don't. [meaning
the way the play was presented to you guys]
__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 10:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
I've got obstruction on the SS.

SS does not have the ball, she is no longer making an initial play, and she has impeded the runner. Sounds like textbook obstruction to me.

At the conclusion of the play, there is most likely nothing to do, since all runners are standing on the bases they would have obtained without the obstruction.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 11:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I've got obstruction on the SS.

SS does not have the ball, she is no longer making an initial play, and she has impeded the runner. Sounds like textbook obstruction to me.

At the conclusion of the play, there is most likely nothing to do, since all runners are standing on the bases they would have obtained without the obstruction.
She was in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball - the fact she was not sucessful does not negate that. The ball passing a fielder immediately (albiet unsuccessfully) fielding the ball does not mean that fielder must go *poof*. There is no requirment the fielding of the ball must be sucessful.


Hence, from my point of view, it cannot be OBS.

There is nothing in the scenario to me that makes me think she was stepping after a deflected ball or a step and reach situation. Just she was still bent over after being in the act of fielding a ball.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS

Last edited by wadeintothem; Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 11:27am.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
The thing that bugs me about this play is, what was the runner going to do if the attempt to field had been successful (or still within step & reach)? IOW, this runner coud see the F6 dead ahead attempting to field a batted ball yet apparently made no attempt to avoid?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
was a force play, became a tag play ? _Bruno_ Baseball 8 Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:13am
Play-by-Play Commentary FC IC Basketball 2 Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:28am
CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? David Clausi Basketball 6 Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1