|
Tue Mar 11, 2003, 02:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"the throw" so obviously means "the throw to retire the batter-runner," that the words don't have to be written down. How can BR interfere with a play when there is no play?
Coaches teach new tactics, players push the game rules, rules makers react. Around here (and I assume anywhere) when you are calling a game for a high level program, you expect action on ball four. If that runner doesn't sprint to 1B and make the turn, she'll probably be on the bench next inning. And if you have a runner on 3B with less than 2 outs, the batter will keep going. So defensive coaches are starting to counter with a snap throw to 1B in an attempt to catch that runner off base. Thus the rule makers had to make sure the throw to 1B on a walk was covered. Not really a big deal. WMB 
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2003, 06:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some of you people, you need to listen to WestMichiganBlue (who seems to have shortened his member name to WestMichBlue). He got this right.
 Some of you are arguing incorrectly or imagining a different situation. The catcher fields the ball (she is inside the diamond); throws to F3/F4; hits the Batter-Runner (who is also inside the diamond) 3 or 4 steps from 1st. The correct ruling on this is an immediate dead ball. All advancement of runners stops - in this case there was no one on base but if there were other runners, they get the last base touched at the time of the interference. The batter-runner is called out for interference. If the throw was good enought to hit the runner, it was good enough that F3 could catch or scoop it. Make the call. Only if there was no one there to make the catch, then play on (and no one there to make the catch is the only case where I would judge that the runner did not interfere). Otherwise I am not going to make some subjective judgement upon how good the firstbaseman is at scooping poor throws... or that she couldn't have tagged the BR, or that she would have been pulled from the base and fell in a mud puddle, etc. The runner should know where she is supposed to be (outside the diamond in the 3 foot lane) and the runner was in the wrong place. Call her out. With no one on the Plate Ump should have made this call from the beginning.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2003, 06:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
If the throw was good enought to hit the runner, it was good enough that F3 could catch or scoop it.
Not necessarily. What happens if the catcher has gone 4 or 5 five steps in line with shortstop, fields ball, twist and throws the ball and the path of the throw, which hits the runner 10-12 feet from the bag, is gonna hit the base coach five feet in front of the bag. Are you gonna call the runner out on that? If you do and they come to me about it, I might just say my partner does not have a clue but it's his call (no, not really).
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2003, 10:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"is gonna hit the base coach five feet in front of the bag.
Apples and oranges, Ronald. The rule book says "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." Normally this rule applies to a play being made down the line. Obviously, if the throw is from somewhere else, and is across the line - then we don't have a play at 1B - and we don't have interference. WMB
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2003, 11:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, for practical purposes yes but for sheer logic no. I reread Downtown's post and his post allows for my situation to be called interference. Now I may have missed something earlier in his posts but if the umpire rules that the first baseman's opportunity to receive the throw was not violated then you do not have interference even though the runner was hit with the ball 3-4 steps from first base.
I do not think you can rule on the opportunity to receive a throw until you see the path of the throw and of course you gotta throw the ball. I think we can agree on that.
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2003, 12:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Total Agreement
I do not think you can rule on the opportunity to receive a throw until you see the path of the throw and of course you gotta throw the ball. I think we can agree on that.
We wandered all over the place - and you stated it simply! "Path of the throw!" Draw a line from the thrower to the receiver - and if the runner is between them - and not in the 3' lane - then you have the potential for interference. If the ball hits the runner and the fielder can not make the play - interference! If it is close, and in so it handcuffs the fielder and she can not make the play, then (your judgement) you could still have interference. Now let's take on another subject. WMB
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2003, 12:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Have you actually read this thread? No one, not one post on this thread said it was not interference in the scenario offered. The question raised by myself and a few others simply noted that the runner being hit with a thrown ball while outside the 3' lane is not necessarily interference. The main qualifier to this call is a defender covering first base must have a play. If the ball obviously slips out of the catcher's hand and happens to contact the BR and I can see that there wasn't a prayer of the defender receiving that ball for a potential out, that is going to be nothing. There needs to be some responsibility taken by the defense to make the play. If I see a catcher with a clear shot to the player covering first, in my judgment, intentionally drill the BR, there will be no interference call, but an ejection may be in order. If the throw draws the defender off the bag and into the path of the runner, in the lane or not, there may be an obstruction call if the runner gets there before the ball, but there will be no interference call. No one is suggesting that you assume the player cannot make a great play on a bad throw, but at least make sure the throw is actually toward that player at 1B.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2003, 01:02am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Top of form to "FAQ", to "Can I use HTML Code in posts?" Then click on the link at the end of this sentence "More information about vB code can be found here."
The quick answer is Left Bracket [ followed by small b, then enclosed with Right Bracket ]. At the end of the sentence you want highlighted, type /b inside the two brackets [ ]. WMB
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2003, 02:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree that there has to be possible play (e.g., not interference if no one is covering).
I disagree with it mattering where the throw comes from, unless it is the foul side of the 1st base line. Getting back to the original question; if the BU wasn't sure of the BR being in the lane or not and the PU wasn't sure it hit the BR (or missed the play), then allowing the play to finish before deciding on the call is correct procedure. This is in spite of interference causing an immediate dead ball, because the remedy (an out, returning other runners) can be done after the fact, just as if it was called right away.
__________________
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.
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2003, 04:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coming in late...
In the original situation, correctly handled. You can always correct not calling a dead ball when you should have, but you can never correct (completely) calling a dead ball when you shouldn't have. Regarding the out of lane violation, there must be a play to be interfered with, and the play is on the receiving end (as has been stated several times in this thread). "Interfering" with the throw, per se, is not interference unless it was intentional. Putting it another way, there must be a play at 1st to be interfered with. Also, getting hit is not required to get the call. If F2 had to get clear of the runner for a throw, and the throw was late by a step or so, that can still get the running lane violation call. So, getting plunked by a throw is not automatically interference, but the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. Exception: if I judge an intentional throw into the runner to "get the call." The player will get the call, alright, just not the one s/he was looking for.
__________________
Tom
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
