![]() |
|
|
|||
Stump the ump....
UIC presented this play at a tournament last week:
Any ruleset R1 on third, R2 on first, less than two outs. F2 does not catch or drops strike 3. Batter takes off for first, F2 retrieves ball and throws toward first, hitting the former batter in the back. R2 was not trying to advance, but was diving back into first. What call, if any, do you have?????
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important! |
|
|||
Trying to think at real-time speed, (as opposed to forum-discussion speed):
If IMO the catcher was attempting a pickoff throw (instead of thinking D3K), I'd have the batter out (strike 3 + INT), and R1 is out. If I feel it's simply a mistaken D3K situation, live ball, play on (dumb move, F2). I'm assuming 8.7.P (note) refers to an actual D3K situation, not a mistaken one. Can't wait to read the proper interp. |
|
|||
isnt the runner closest to home out when interference is called on a already retired player?... at least in FED land it is? yeah which R1 would be (edit by me) lol
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana. |
|
|||
Quote:
This is not a case that the runner was trying to break up a double play. |
|
|||
In ASA and Fed, there is an exception for the "retired runner continuing to run and drawing a throw" interference rule (ASA 8-7P, NFHS 8-7-18) for a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.
Even though both books word this exception in an unfortunate manner, leading to constant arguments/discussions as to whether it applies when the D3K rule is not in effect, when the batter is still a batter and not a BR, etc., etc., case plays such as NFHS 8.1.1-B make it clear the exception applies to when the batter/BR runs "as if" on the D3K rule. Therefore, the retired batter is not out for merely running and drawing a throw. I don't see how being hit with the thrown ball changes anything.
__________________
Tom Last edited by Dakota; Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:12pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
The jmkkupka comment "If IMO the catcher was attempting a pickoff throw (instead of thinking D3K), I'd have the batter out (strike 3 + INT), and R1 is out." is worth considering.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. |
|
|||
Quote:
When reading the post for some reason, I was picturing the addition of the runner being outside the running lane. Although this doesn't actually qualify as a running lane violation - it still could be enough to qualify for the first sentence of 8-6-18, eh? |
|
|||
I was gonna get you on that...you're too quick for me.
|
|
|||
Quote:
You are wrong according to the rules of softball. Your judgement of B1's intent or awareness has absolutely zero to do with the ruling on this play. If a player already out interferes with a play, it is interference. Black and white; notwithstanding your judgement.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
IOW, the third strike exception (ASA 8-7P, NFHS 8-7-18) does not apply ?
Tangent, not quite a hijack. ![]() The batter is already out, also the runner closest to home at he moment of INT, so if the ball then goes out of play, only any remaining runners would stay and be awarded bases.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. |
|
|||
Why would you award bases? The ball was dead the moment it hit the retired batter. At that point, don't really care where the ball goes.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. |
|
|||
Quote:
Just that; not out for drawing a throw. But, if that already retired batter interferes in any OTHER way, then the exception does not apply. Here is a case play where the throw was not drawn by running; the already retired batter interfered with an attempt on another runner. That has to be interference, without regard to intent. DRJ1960, my response to you was based on the tone of your response, that you had (seemingly) made up your mind that you would rule based on your determination of non-intent, without considering any other factors. That isn't a factor in properly applying the rules, and I wanted to tell you that. If you insist on that interpretation, you would be wrong. No more than that.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stump the chump | kdf5 | Football | 2 | Fri Feb 04, 2005 02:43pm |
stump the chump 3? | MJT | Football | 5 | Wed Jan 26, 2005 01:04pm |
Stump the chump - 2 ?s | MJT | Football | 24 | Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:44pm |
Stump the Chump -- Jan 11 | Bob M. | Football | 2 | Tue Jan 11, 2005 02:14pm |
Stump the chump - 4 ?s | MJT | Football | 15 | Fri Jan 07, 2005 03:48pm |