|
Fri Apr 18, 2003, 10:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's one that arose in a recent tournament for which our team participated. What would your call be?
Set the stage: ASA Softball tournament, Top of 3rd, score tied, no runners on base, 1 out. Questionable call evolves around Orange Base at first. Batter hits to F6, F6 fields ball and throws to F3. F3 has one foot on white bag as ball is thrown. BR collides with F3 as F3 catches ball. F3 holds onto ball and goes to ground in pain. Two or 3 seconds pass then F3 pulls hand out of glove with ball still in it. Umpire calls BR save because F3 did not "bring the ball up after the catch". My thought "well, yeah, she got knocked out almost!" This had me in a quandry. I've never heard of this rule. Is this accurate? Further, doesn't F3 have the right to the white bag at first and BR the orange? What would your call be? Steve 
|
|
Fri Apr 18, 2003, 11:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe a HTBT situtation, but unless the umpire had reason to believe
that possibily F3 did not have control, then it sounds as though the defense took a hosing, assuming F3 remained in control with the base on the catch. JMHO, glen
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain.
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 12:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Glen. As to "bringing the ball up after the catch", I would expect to hear that only about a ball that was scooped or trapped by F3 with the glove on top of the ball & the ball on/near the ground. With F3 voluntarily removing ball from glove - if I'm picturing that right - that is a catch and an out.
As an afterthought, there might well be a case for interference by the batter-runner here. B-R only entitled to the orange base, so there is no need or reason to enter fair territory - where the white base is. Steve M [Edited by Steve M on Apr 19th, 2003 at 12:19 AM]
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 04:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fielders sometimes show the ball to the ump to prove that they have it, but they don't have to. Unless the ump had good reason to believe the fielder hadn't maintained control, it's an out.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 04:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
My first opinion on the play is as Steve M mentioned if F3 is on the white bag using a double base and there is a collision than we have INT on the BR.
2nd opinion would be "show me the ball" is usally only used on a tag play or a play where the fielder pulled the ball off of the ground a juggle ball is either called or not. No showing of the ball. 3rd opinion there is no time limit I am aware of a fielder must show the ball when asked by an umpire JMO's Don
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 07:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lots of our topics are YHTBT, but I prefer to go with what I visualize while reading the question, so I'll asume no juggle and no ground contact. The comment
"F3 has one foot on white bag as ball is thrown. BR collides with F3 as F3 catches ball. F3 holds onto ball and goes to ground in pain." sounds to me like the BR is out either because F3 was still on the base for the catch or because the interference was why she wasn't. The "F3 did not "bring the ball up after the catch"." sounds like a TV rule, i.e., the commentator said something about showing the umpire the ball or bringing it up and this newbie took it as a rule. It's a shame that the coaches (or players) have to teach umpires the rules. The other issue is whether the BR gets to spend the rest of the game in the dugout for the crash. There is no penalty as such for not using the colored base (treated as a missed base), but there is for using the white and colliding.
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 08:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003, 09:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
Interesting sideline to this discussion. Ejected youth player - I restrict to the bench. Steve Sprivitor didn't tell us the age group involved, but ..... We can be pretty sure that it is JO ball since they are using the double base. I agree with an ejected adult being gone from sight & sound, but I do not agree with sending an 18&U or younger ejected player anywhere except the bench. Steve M
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 08:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Steve,
Unless the act was flagrant. From reading the post I don't see anything but a collision, unintentional type, but true Mike, I was not there. glen
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain.
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 09:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However, Steve, you are showing that old FP bias. A double-base is manatory for all JO FP and Senior SP games. However, it is also used wherever they are installed and many SP games are played on fields with double-bases. Secondly, if the crash wasn't flagrant, the player should not be ejected. (8.7.Q) ASA does not have a bench restriction, per se. Under the definition of Ejected Player you will see that if the act for ejection is flagrant, the player or coach will be required to leave the grounds for the remainder of the game. I'm not saying that you cannot or should not permit the player to stay, silently I might add, on the bench. I'm just noting what the rule book states.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 10:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
You're right, I showed my ignorance (stick around, I'm sure I've got lots more to show) by not even considering that we'll use the double base when it's present on the field at any level. I agree that if a crash isn't flagrant there's no penalty. But, is this a change ASA should think about - putting an ejected youth player to the bench? Steve M
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 10:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't think this is the same situation held by the high schools where an educational facility is liable. As you know, ASA tries not to get overly specific with their rules as the more lines they draw in the sand, the more questions and confusion come about. Where do you draw such a line? I've seen some girls at the 14U level who can get pretty sassy toward an umpire, though there aren't that many. But as umpires, we certainly don't need to have to worry about babysitting when working games. They way I see it, if it is necessary to get rid of a player, it should be the team's responsibility to ensure her safety, not mine. If that means a coach needs to go with her, oh well! As I said before, I'm not advocating forcing an ejected player to leave the grounds if the umpire is satisfied with confining them to the bench.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 02:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under the Had To Be There rule my 1st impression was that the throw was up the line towards home and our "Collision" was actually an unavoidable wreck. This would also explain why the blue needed to be shown the ball because if she went down on top of the ball he may not have seen catch/no catch, in which case he should call safe or go to his partner for help because you should never guess an out. So Sprivitor, we believe that there could have been an out but make sure to add the HTBT aspect.
I saw a similar play on friday at a Big Ten game. R3 was stealing 2nd and the poor throw came in on the 3rd base side causing an obstructed view for the ump. He then "guessed" her out when everyone on the 3rd base side could see that the tag was waaaaaay late, I mean she was already getting to her feet when the tag was made. Why some blues feel that going to a partner for help is somehow questioning their abilities I'll never know. Jim
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 02:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't visualize F3 being pulled off the base in "F3 has one foot on white bag as ball is thrown. BR collides with F3 as F3 catches ball", so I assumed the collision happened at the base. I have no problem with the umpire checking for the ball as I hope we all do, but I didn't get the time limit aspect. Was it credibility of control in spite of still having it after getting knocked down? If there was no catch with the collision, then it probably should have been interference regardless of ball shown or not.
Yes, restricted to the dugout is what I meant, rather than sight & sound; although I have no history of FP ejections to go on. Yes, Mike, that is my bias to FP, reinforced by sprivitor sounding like a coach, asking about 10&U in another topic and saying "she got knocked out almost". Always has been, always will be and also chocolate over vanilla.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
