Play from Iraq

[MD Longhorn]

Well, it would be nice if there was a definition of kicking... but since there is not, I would ask you if a ball striking a fielder in the knee would qualify as fitting into this clarification. I don't think it would. Striking the fielder in the foot should be no different thatn it striking him anywhere else. Again, with the clarification lumping "kicking" in with throwing, I have to assume they intended kicking to be a purposeful act. When you kick a soccer ball or football - you do so on purpose. When a ball happens to strike a foot, it's not a kick. I know - those sports are not softball ... but the logic is sound.

The clarification does not apply in this case, to my mind. 2 bases TOP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well, it would be nice if there was a definition of kicking... but since there is not, I would ask you if a ball striking a fielder in the knee would qualify as fitting into this clarification. I don't think it would. Striking the fielder in the foot should be no different thatn it striking him anywhere else. Again, with the clarification lumping "kicking" in with throwing, I have to assume they intended kicking to be a purposeful act. When you kick a soccer ball or football - you do so on purpose. When a ball happens to strike a foot, it's not a kick. I know - those sports are not softball ... but the logic is sound.

The clarification does not apply in this case, to my mind. 2 bases TOP.

Please, give me a break. Maybe we need a definition for "is".

The manner in which the ball left the field of play is relevant, the method used is not. I don't care if it was kicked with a foot, knee, bumped with an elbow, shoulder or hip or headed, if the defense MISPLAYED the ball and provided the impetus which placed it into position to leave playable territory, I'm going with the clarification until told otherwise.

As I stated before, not my clarification, but as noted in another thread, you cannot worry about fairness and obviously, it isn't the umpires' rules or clarifications

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Please, give me a break. Maybe we need a definition for "is".

The manner in which the ball left the field of play is relevant, the method used is not. I don't care if it was kicked with a foot, knee, bumped with an elbow, shoulder or hip or headed, if the defense MISPLAYED the ball and provided the impetus which placed it into position to leave playable territory, I'm going with the clarification until told otherwise.

As I stated before, not my clarification, but as noted in another thread, you cannot worry about fairness and obviously, it isn't the umpires' rules or clarifications

Give you a break? For what? Please refer me to a rule that states that the provider of impetus has anything at all to do with this. I've said it, and heard it, many times... a batted ball is a batted ball until it's not. This - despite all of the pinballing around ... is a batted ball. There is no rule to tell us differently.

I'm not stating my belief about the kick requiring intent because I'm looking for fairness - I agree with you that you can't worry about fairness - that's the rulesmakers' jobs, and too many officials (in all sports) choose to not see things due to their own idea of fairness. What I'm looking for is consistency. The clarification you mention puts a kicked ball on par with a thrown ball. Throwing a ball is intentional. Kicking a ball, in any other context, is also intentional - so assuming the clarification is referring to an intentional act is consistent, in every way.

If the clarification meant to include something unintentional (like the OP), would it not have said, "deflected" or at least "given new impetus" or something along those lines? If it meant to say what you're assuming it says, where do you draw the line? Fielder charging a hard grounder misses the play, it deflects off her ankle 10 degrees and rolls into a dugout beyond 3rd base? What about 30 degrees and a dugout in front of 3rd base? Or 90 degrees and a dugout by the ODC? Where is the line between deflected and your unintentional kick providing new impetus?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Give you a break? For what? Please refer me to a rule that states that the provider of impetus has anything at all to do with this. I've said it, and heard it, many times... a batted ball is a batted ball until it's not. This - despite all of the pinballing around ... is a batted ball. There is no rule to tell us differently.

And how many times do I need to reiterate that this is not my clarification, but that of the NUS?

I'm not stating my belief about the kick requiring intent because I'm looking for fairness - I agree with you that you can't worry about fairness - that's the rulesmakers' jobs, and too many officials (in all sports) choose to not see things due to their own idea of fairness. What I'm looking for is consistency. The clarification you mention puts a kicked ball on par with a thrown ball. Throwing a ball is intentional. Kicking a ball, in any other context, is also intentional - so assuming the clarification is referring to an intentional act is consistent, in every way.

If the clarification meant to include something unintentional (like the OP), would it not have said, "deflected" or at least "given new impetus" or something along those lines? If it meant to say what you're assuming it says, where do you draw the line? Fielder charging a hard grounder misses the play, it deflects off her ankle 10 degrees and rolls into a dugout beyond 3rd base? What about 30 degrees and a dugout in front of 3rd base? Or 90 degrees and a dugout by the ODC? Where is the line between deflected and your unintentional kick providing new impetus?

I believe you are overthinking this based on semantics. Would it have made a difference if the defender tripped and his head hit the ball out of play? Forget the kick/throw rhetoric as that is all it is. The point of the clarification was that it wasn't the actions of the batter hitting the ball that caused the ball to enter DBT. It was the fielder that caused the ball to enter DBT.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And how many times do I need to reiterate that this is not my clarification, but that of the NUS?

None... I didn't say it was. I never thought it was. Not even sure why you said this again.

I believe you are overthinking this based on semantics. Would it have made a difference if the defender tripped and his head hit the ball out of play? Forget the kick/throw rhetoric as that is all it is. The point of the clarification was that it wasn't the actions of the batter hitting the ball that caused the ball to enter DBT. It was the fielder that caused the ball to enter DBT.

I may be overthinking it, I grant you that. And no to your next question - if the defender tripped and his head hit the ball out of play, no, it would not make a difference. Still 2 bases from TOP. The "clarification" (now beginning to think we're using this word VERY loosely!) seems to me to apply to intentional actions by the fielder.

I can't say this for certain, obviously, but it seems unlikely that the people who wrote the "clarification" intended umpires to now be in the business of deciding whether the batter or the fielder imparted more impetus when a ball is deflected out of play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I may be overthinking it, I grant you that. And no to your next question - if the defender tripped and his head hit the ball out of play, no, it would not make a difference. Still 2 bases from TOP. The "clarification" (now beginning to think we're using this word VERY loosely!) seems to me to apply to intentional actions by the fielder.

Just the opposite. As previously stated, if the fielder intentionally knocked the ball into DBT, 8.5.K would apply.

I can't say this for certain, obviously, but it seems unlikely that the people who wrote the "clarification" intended umpires to now be in the business of deciding whether the batter or the fielder imparted more impetus when a ball is deflected out of play.

I don't think it is any more difficult than making any other judgment on the field.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I may be overthinking it, I grant you that. And no to your next question - if the defender tripped and his head hit the ball out of play, no, it would not make a difference. Still 2 bases from TOP. The "clarification" (now beginning to think we're using this word VERY loosely!) seems to me to apply to intentional actions by the fielder.

Just the opposite. As previously stated, if the fielder intentionally knocked the ball into DBT, 8.5.K would apply.

I can't say this for certain, obviously, but it seems unlikely that the people who wrote the "clarification" intended umpires to now be in the business of deciding whether the batter or the fielder imparted more impetus when a ball is deflected out of play.

I don't think it is any more difficult than making any other judgment on the field.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just the opposite. As previously stated, if the fielder intentionally knocked the ball into DBT, 8.5.K would apply.



I don't think it is any more difficult than making any other judgment on the field.

Wasn't it a little soon to restate your point????