|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 07:14am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sorry, Martin, cannot buy into that theory. The point is that the batter meant to contact the ball and put it into fair play. You are not penalizing a team "not at fault" as ALL runners not in contact with a base are required to avoid interfering with fielders attempting a play on a live batted ball. What do you expect of the fielder? It is not the fielder's responsibility to think, "my goodness, I believe the bat may have contacted the catcher's mitt, so there is no need to go after that ball." The ball is live, runs may score and it is possible that outs can be accomplished on the play, that is why it is a delayed dead ball. Interference is a live ball rules violation. Catcher's obstruction does not pardon players from their responsibility to abide by the rules. BTW, in a 3-umpire system, the BR/Runner is U3's responsibility all the way to 3B. U1 trails BR and "assists" in watching the BR touch 1B then return, in foul territory, to the left side of the plate area. So, actually, U2 is the only umpire who did not have the responsibility to watch the BR touch 1B.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. 
|
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 09:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've stayed out of this so far 'cause it has been an ASA ruling but:
Calling it catcher's interference is a baseball thing, OBR rules to be correct. It is the only time that the defense may "interfer". Fed baseball and all softball codes I'm aware of call it catcher's obstruction. Martin's theory makes sense, and would be the proper interpertation in Fed softball, USSSA softball, Pony softball, and both baseball codes.(IMO) When multiple infractions occcur on the same play, you generally peanalize the first infraction first. If that penalty negates folowing action on the same play, the secondary infraction would be disregarded. If the first penalty does not negate following actions, then you peanalize in the order the infractions occured. If a second infraction negates folowing actions, then again you go no futher, and so forth. In the sitch at hand, only if the interference included "malicious" or "un-sportsman like" contact on F6 would the offense be peanalized under the codes I listed. Did that confuse everbody? If not, let me tell you the story of a baseball game in which on one play I had a "catcher's balk", my partner had a pitcher's balk, and then I had catcher's interference (OBR rules), in that order, with the bases juced and a saftey squeze on!!! Roger Greene Post script: I may have confused some with this post. My appology. Fed 8-4-3b has an execption to the general rule as I pointed out below. It would apply if there was an obsruction by a fielder, but IMO would not apply to catcher's obstruction. My interpertation here only applys to the sitch in which we have catcher's obstruction followed by a runner interfering with the delayed dead ball play. Roger [Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2003 at 06:43 PM]
|
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 01:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speaking FED
If I follow your logic, the runner on 2B is awarded 3B on the obstruction call therefore no interference could have happened (assuming no USC). That makes sense, yet Mike's position that you still have a live ball situation during which interference is a violation, also makes sense.
What then is a application of the sentence in the FED book (8-3 or 8-4) that says "interference takes precedence over obstruction?" I am wondering how I would call the following. Batter hit soft fly over 1B and tries to turn it into a double. Tangles with F3, regains balance and continues to 2B. Throw from F9 to F4 beats runner; runner colides with F4 (no slide)causing F4 to drop ball. Had there not been obstruction, it would not have been close at 2B and no interference would have occured. Can the umpire make that judgement? Or do we award the runner 2B and negate the interference call? If we are going to call her out for interference, then the situation changes if the runner simply stops and lets F4 walk up and tag her. She can not be put out between the bases where obstruction occured so she is going to be awarded 2B (or returned to 1B). Does that same rule ("can not be put out . . .) prevent us from calling her out for interference? Now - Roger - tell us about that catcher's balk! WMB
|
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 04:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is where we get to the rub.
FED 8-4-3b deals with obstruction of a runner by a fielder not in possession of the ball, ect. The section closes with the wording "...Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence;..." Now the question becomes : Does "any obstruction" include catcher's obstruction (found in 8-1-2d) or does it just refer to any obstruction as defined in 8-4-3b. IMO it just deals with 8-4-3b obstructions. If it also applied to 8-1-2d, then that wording would have been added to the "Effect" clauses under 8-1-2d. Therefore, since the obstruction by a fielder is excepted from the general rule of enforcement priorites, we enforce the interference even though it happened after the 8-4-3b obstruction. The 8-1-2d obstruction is not excepted, so we must follow the general rule of priorities. See 2003 play 8.4.3 Situation B (an example of general rule of priorities). As for the catcher's balk, if you are asking what it is, it is a violation of OBR 7.07 as opposed to catcher's interference found in 6.08c. At times the same actions could violate either rule, and there is a conflict on which penalty should be enforced if that happens with R2 and R3 only. Roger Greene [Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2003 at 03:04 PM]
|
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 06:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Speaking FED
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003, 09:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike.............
Don't we penalize the events in the order they happen? Catcher's obstruction occured first......... In the POE section I believe it says that CO is only cancelled if the batter and all other runners advance at least one base........the offensive coach gets a choice to take the play if anything else happens................. i.e. - interference.......or the penalty for CO............ I don't have my rulebook or casebook in front of me......... But, I based on my recolection..........I don't see an ASA rule that would overule the CO in this play. Joel BTW.........nice to see all of y'all again.
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 07:36am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't see an ASA rule it says you ignore interference. Think about this. It is a live ball. The defense is permitted to put out other runners during this period as long as the obstructed player is not put out. Folks here have made mention of penalizing the team that caused the action. What about rewarding the team that plays in an unsportsmanlike manner? BTW, welcome back, Joel. Say you have a runner on 1B and the batter's swing is obstructed and hits a slow roller to F4. Stupid SP batter just stands at the plate screaming "interference, blue". Meanwhile R1 sees F4 step up to field the ball and plows him over. Are you going to reward the team that just had a player intentionally run over F4 by placing B2 on 1B & R1 on 2B? According to just about everyone on this thread, that's the call. If you don't call the interference, you cannot call the out. And interference in this case does not require intention.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 08:32am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whatever ASA says is the correct ruling, their book is ambiguous and permits plausible argument both ways.
Roger says that if interference does indeed cancel the CO, then ASA is in conflict with Fed softball, OBR, Pony, etc. So ASA's reasoning is not necessarily natural and obvious, since those other entities have apparently gone the other way on this play. As far as the runner plowing over F4 goes, we always have the option of ejection. We can all cite plays in which a runner is ejected but not called out, and perhaps this is one of them.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 08:50am
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't found this exact play in any of my case books. I just gave the interpertation that I have been taught to use in the codes I mentioned. Further I stated the reasoning I used to support those interps in my post above.
When dealing with rules interpertations, just like appealate courts, sometimes logic does not apply! If ASA adopts the interp discussed here, other codes may or may not follow. Roger Greene
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 10:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello all its been awhile. I have been sitting on the sidelines trying to figure this play out. I am so confused that I have sent it to NCAA Rules Interp for a ruling. I have also asked for a ASA Interp. In asking for these interps I want the rules and rational. Mike I have a question regarding this statement. I don't see an ASA rule it says you ignore interference. Think about this. It is a live ball. The defense is permitted to put out other runners during this period as long as the obstructed player is not put out. Yes Mike the defense is allowed to attempt to make an out. But in this play, had the interference not occured, then isn't the outcome the BR gets first and all other baserunners advance 1 base if forced otherwise they return to the base previously occupied?
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What if the batter hit a pop up involving CO and F3 is camped near the line to catch it and the BR knocks F3 over before catching the ball? R1 now scores, R2 to 3B and BR ends up on 2B. Do you just ignore the INT? According to the post on this thread you do. I wish whoever posted this damn thing to start would get that answer from Merle, I sure am tired of defending the original clinician's interpretation.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 01:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
I now understand where you are coming from. I am still waiting a response as well from my contacts. I've gotta believe we will end up with bases loaded no outs with the CO taking precedent over the INT since all baserunners did not advance one base(When forced) on the CO. We will soon see.
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 01:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
SamC
|
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 10:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You cannot do that. On both plays, each runner moved up one base safely and the BR reached 1B. By rule, there is no option to be offered to the coach. The only way to avoid that is to rule interference, but when you do that, you must call an out. If you read my posts, you will see that I did not use the "interference supercedes obstruction" argument. I don't see anything fair about your resolution. All runners are responsible for avoiding a fielder attempting to play a fair batted or fly ball. There are no exceptions to that rule. In the original post, what if R1 scores and you end up with runners at the corners because of the INT by R1? If this is the case, you would have runners pushing fielders out of the way every opportunity every time they saw the left arm go out.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
