The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 01:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Yes, I know. I was countering Mike's argument that the runner would have been out even if there was no force, hence it is not a force. I wasn't arguing that a tag is not a force in a force situation. Quite the opposite.
Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 02:12pm
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.
Which was my point from the beginning - score the run, call R2 out, award BR 1B, end the inning, play ball.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 02:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.
No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.

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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.
Okay, citations please.

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.
Where did anyone say such a thing? However, if the run is scored, what possible affect can INT have on that play? If the play takes that long, maybe the defense should have thrown the ball home in an effort to stop the run.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Where did anyone say such a thing? However, if the run is scored, what possible affect can INT have on that play? If the play takes that long, maybe the defense should have thrown the ball home in an effort to stop the run.
If B4 had instead hit the ball over the fence, and R2 missed 2B, what possible difference should that make regarding R1's touch of HP? Yet, we have a rule that says that this is also a force out if appealed, even though no runner or base was tagged with the ball.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp View Post
If B4 had instead hit the ball over the fence, and R2 missed 2B, what possible difference should that make regarding R1's touch of HP? Yet, we have a rule that says that this is also a force out if appealed, even though no runner or base was tagged with the ball.
Not true, there are no missed base appeals in your game

Quote:
And missing a base is a much less benign infraction compared to INT, I would say.
You caught my shortcoming and failure to be specific. I'm working more along the line of placement of runner(s) debate. ASA has pretty much stayed away from being punitive in nature of their rules, especially INT & OBS. IMO, that is why you may not see the TOP as a return point anytime soo, but you never know.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 03:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
You caught my shortcoming and failure to be specific.
Mike, I've never viewed your posts as having shortcomings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I'm working more along the line of placement of runner(s) debate. ASA has pretty much stayed away from being punitive in nature of their rules, especially INT & OBS. IMO, that is why you may not see the TOP as a return point anytime soo, but you never know.
And my view on the subject has nothing to do with placement of runners, but whether or not this would be a third out as the result of a force out vs. just another out.

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:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
Well, that's why we have a rule change committee that meets every year. The game evolves, and so must we.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 03:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Okay, citations please.
No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Where did anyone say such a thing?
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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 06:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
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.
Dakota, I'm with you on this. (Though, SRW, if I'm calling for you, I'll remember which way you're going to rule if you have to come to my field.) But there are definitely rules where committing an infraction is to your advantage. Besides the ones we've mentioned, here's one from a while back on this board where everyone soundly pounded into my head the ruling. Ball in foul territory (not fly) that is clearly going to bound fair and be fielded for an out. BR should interfere with the fielder while the ball is still in foul ground.
________
Tasty_squirt

Last edited by youngump; Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:07pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 11:34am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
Dakota, I'm with you on this. (Though, SRW, if I'm calling for you, I'll remember which way you're going to rule if you have to come to my field.) But there are definitely rules where committing an infraction is to your advantage. Besides the ones we've mentioned, here's one from a while back on this board where everyone soundly pounded into my head the ruling. Ball in foul territory (not fly) that is clearly going to bound fair and be fielded for an out. BR should interfere with the fielder while the ball is still in foul ground.
If you call for me knowing what I'll say, then why did you call for me?
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 11:39am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 07:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.
And here I thought we were talking about what is.

Quote:
You did by saying that INT is not a force.
I didn't say it, I just quoted the rule book.

Quote:
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.
Of course, you are assuming there are players and coaches that smart that can act that quick.

Quote:
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.
That was a general comment upon which I stand. Go back over some recent threads and see how often a comment along the lines of "I'm not gonna let xxxxx" do this, take advantage of that or get away with whatever, and all without support of the rules or interpretations.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 06, 2009, 10:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Of course, you are assuming there are players and coaches that smart that can act that quick.
It's unlikely that a player will know that at that exact moment, interfering with the play is exactly what they should do. However, it's when this happens that I'm sure the defensive coach will come out to wonder why a run was scored when his team's opportunity to get a force out was interfered with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
That was a general comment upon which I stand. Go back over some recent threads and see how often a comment along the lines of "I'm not gonna let xxxxx" do this, take advantage of that or get away with whatever, and all without support of the rules or interpretations.
In researching this situation, I attempted to find the rule that used to say that an umpire should not use a rule that benefits the team at fault, but apparently, it was omitted from the book. I suspect the reasoning behind this would be consistent with Mike's statement about the rules moving away from assigning "penalties" and simply sticking to "effects," not to mention the potential for abuse by overuse of things such as 10-1.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 09:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 262
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.................
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
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1