This could be interesting.

[whiskers_ump]

2003 NFHS Softball Rules Changes.

6-2-6 Clarifies that when a ball slips from the
pitcher's hand, the batter may legally swing at a
ball that has an opportunity to be struck rather than
an automatic "ball" being called.

"Is this opening a real can of worms or what?"
I see it now, runner on 2nd 3/2 count ball bouncing in
after slipping, batter swings goes hard to 1B, F2
pondering her options. Now suppose F2 waits on ball
it never reaches plate. Would this fit in the new
category? Or would the batter just be called out since
the ball did not have opportunity to be struck. Suppose F2
does not wait, jumps up as soon as Batter swings and
goes out into field say 3 feet to retrieve ball and try and
throw the BR out. Can't have obstruction, batter
had opportunity to swing and did. Now blue is stuck
with making a judgement, "Did the ball or would have
the ball had an opportunity to be struck?"
I know, common sense needs to be applied, but lets hear
what everyone thinks.



glen



[Edited by whiskers_ump on Sep 3rd, 2002 at 08:01 PM]

[bluezebra]

I see it now, runner on 2nd 3/2 count ball bouncing in
after slipping, batter swings goes hard to 1B, F2
pondering her options. Now suppose F2 waits on ball
it never reaches plate.
**Once the batter swings, F2, or any fielder, does not have to wait. The ball has been struck at.

Would this fit in the new
category? Or would the batter just be called out since
the ball did not have opportunity to be struck.
**Why would the batter be called out? The ball was struck at. It's an uncaught third strike. The batter has the right to attempt to reach 1B.

Suppose F2 does not wait, jumps up as soon as Batter swings and goes out into field say 3 feet to retrieve ball and try and throw the BR out. Can't have obstruction, batter
had opportunity to swing and did. Now blue is stuck
with making a judgement, "Did the ball or would have
the ball had an opportunity to be struck?"
**NO judgement necessary. THE BATTER STRUCK AT THE BALL!!! Once the batter swings, it's implied that he had the opportunity.

Don't try to read into the rule what isn't there. If F2 jumps out in front of the plate BEFORE the ball reaches the plate, it's catcher's interference. Otherwise it's an uncaught third strike if swung at. If there is no swing, and F2 doesn't go out to get it, it's ball four.

Bob

[Caselli]

**NO judgement necessary. THE BATTER STRUCK AT THE BALL!!! Once the batter swings, it's implied that he had the opportunity.

On the other hand, this SEEMS TO BE the essential part of the change they are intending to make. DOH !!!

[Dakota]

the batter may legally swing at a ball that has an opportunity to be struck

The phrase "that has an opportunity to be struck" seems to be the trouble here.

Obviously, determining this is umpire judgment, and also (it seems obvious) a batter may swing at a ball that does not have an opportunity to be struck - what then?

The wording of the rule would imply the batter did not legally swing.

OOOOEEEEE, we're in for some fun!

[WestMichBlue]

Put the ball on the ground with a runner on base and she is off to the next base. The catcher can not go to field the ball without being called for obstruction. Either way she gives up a base.

Put the ball on the ground with strikes on the batter and she swings quickly and heads for first. Never get her! By time catcher gets to ball she has no play.

Rule makers are not supposed to give an advantage to one side over the other. Just call it a ball and leave it live. Defense gives up a pitch, and if the runner can make it to the next base then good for her.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I think everyone is jumping to conclusions a bit quick.

Ever have a batter lazily let the bat drop and swing while the pitch is on it's way? Do you automatically call that a strike?

Probably not as the batter did not make an effort to hit the ball.

As far as penalizing the defense, remember, they are the cause of the confusion. Rules are not supposed to be there to protect teams from themselves.

I don't know how this will play out, but I'm sure some coach, somewhere will try to abuse the system.



JMHO,

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

I've got to go with Bob (BlueZebra) on this. He's right, don't try to read so much into it. I think this is a rule that next year will have it's language cleaned up. It's worded too bizarre!

[whiskers_ump]

I agree with all that is being said. I posted to let
everyone know the change is coming. As Mike said, you
will have some coaches that will try and abuse the new
wording on the rule. Maybe before the books come out, which
is October, they will have a "fix".

Have good games guys/gals.


glen