![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
![]() INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts. |
|
|||
Quote:
So, by what you say, with a runner on 3B and 2 outs, any other runner who is forced should be tackling the fielder once R1 crosses home.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that so many people feel a need to "protect" one team or the other instead of just administering the rules under which BOTH teams agreed to play? |
|
|||
Quote:
And missing a base is a much less benign infraction compared to INT, I would say.
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() Quote:
They have also made a serious effort to make it easier to understand the application and enforcement of the rules for participants and officials alike. Many efforts have been made to keep them as generic and equally applicable across the numerous games, divisions and classes for which ASA is responsible. I think we are straying away from that and, IMO, is not necessarily a good thing for all concerned while it will benefit those with a limited spectrum. |
|
|||
Mike, I've never viewed your posts as having shortcomings.
![]() Quote:
Regarding punitive vs. non-punitive rules, well, I can't really side with them on that. I understand that the rules are simply rules, and the vast majority of players out there are not out to cause problems. However, sanitizing the rules of any "punitive" languages is silly. Not everyone out there is a saint, and there must be some understanding that bad behavior results in penalties as prescribed by ASA. Granted, the sitch I bring up in the OP does not appear, in my opinion, to be one of ill will. Yet making that distinction when the ink meets paper is a daunting task. Quote:
![]()
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
|
|||
No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.
You did by saying that INT is not a force. Since INT is not a force, it can be used intentionally by the offense to convert what would be a force out into a timing play. And the issue is not "protecting" one team, but rather preventing one team from gaining an advantage by committing an infraction against the other team.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
________ Tasty_squirt Last edited by youngump; Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:07pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts. |
|
|||
I'm having a difficult time seeing how allowing the run to score is penalizing the defense (or conversely, rewarding the offense) because of the INT-Out. The only way we get tougher with INT is when it's INT by someone who is already out or not in the game (ODB), then we get the runner closest to home. But even with that situation (ODB INT), we would be allowing the run to score and calling out the runner closest to home... how is that theory any different in the OP? Even after reading a very good debate on this here (well done, guys!), I'm still leaning toward a non-force situation in the OP.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts. |
|
|||
And here I thought we were talking about what is.
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
However, in this case, I wish I could find it. We have a number of other rules that prevent the defense from gaining advantages by technicalities, such as intentionally carrying the ball into dead ball territory to prevent further advancement by runners or to prevent them from completing their baserunning responsibilities. In that case, a one-base award becomes a two-base award. I sincerely doubt that I will ever encounter this kind of play in my lifetime. However, in this one singular instance, I do believe that the offense is not being held to the same, consistent standard to which the defense is also being held: an advantage should not be gained for an act that is contrary to the rules. Maybe ASA will correct it, or maybe it's intentional. Until then, some poor umpire is gonna have a hell of a time explaining to the defensive coach how a runner found a way to avoid being forced out without ever advancing to the base to which they were forced to advance.
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
|
|||
If the run does score in this case, that opens a whole new strategy for a squeeze play.
Bases loaded, 2 outs, squeeze for a guaranteed run, R1 running with the pitch. B4 puts ball in play. R2 and R3 run directectly to the ball and make contact. Absurd?........... Of course, but................. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference? | scarolinablue | Baseball | 39 | Wed Mar 11, 2009 02:52pm |
Interference / Force Play Slide | tjones1 | Baseball | 25 | Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:25pm |
Force Out | rickbeauv | Softball | 22 | Tue Jun 24, 2003 04:04pm |
Force-slide play or just interference? | Gre144 | Baseball | 1 | Thu Mar 29, 2001 12:31am |
Force slide play and 2 outs or just interference and umpires judgement | Gre144 | Baseball | 5 | Mon Mar 26, 2001 07:57am |