need a little help I have confused myself

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

8-8-13 Runner is not out when hit by a fair batted ball while touching a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play.

BTW, had state NFHS rules interpreter confirm this was the appropriate rule for the scenario offered.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tidefanintenn

no problem. I just couldnt see what it was for but i can understand. I have some of those pet peaves myself. I really do appreciate being able to come to this site and get things from different perspectives. It has helped me become a better umpire. thanks guys

Without making it a tirade again, or personal, I'll summarize.

IMHO
"She was only doing what she was supposed to do" is a crutch. It's a coach's crutch that generally means either, "I don't know the rule and don't understand this ruling." or "I think that rule is unfair". It's an umpire's crutch that often means, "I don't know the rules, but this ruling SEEMS right."

I would say that at least 1/3 of the time someone says this, they are wrong. The other 2/3, they happen to be right, but only by sheer luck. Generally, to me, if an umpire says this, he is as much as saying that he doesn't know the rule involved, and is ruling on what he perceives as fair. I'd rather umpires know WHY they are making the correct ruling as much as I want them to make the correct ruling.

Case in point - the OP (and please don't take this personally). You had the rule right - but only on accident. You made the ruling because "I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do", and in this case, the ruling was right... but to me it's important that you rule the way you did because you KNOW the relevant rule. If a coach asks you about the call and you use the crutch, he will know you don't really know the rule. Much better for blue to say, "In ASA, the runner is not out when she unintentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play while she is standing on the base."

So much for making it short, eh? Anyway, that is the background of the sigh ... I hope you don't take it personally, but I also hope you (and all umpires) shy away from using the phrase, or at least, if you find yourself thinking that phrase, you will later check the book to see not only IF you were right, but WHY you were right.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Without making it a tirade again, or personal, I'll summarize.

IMHO
"She was only doing what she was supposed to do" is a crutch. It's a coach's crutch that generally means either, "I don't know the rule and don't understand this ruling." or "I think that rule is unfair". It's an umpire's crutch that often means, "I don't know the rules, but this ruling SEEMS right."

I would say that at least 1/3 of the time someone says this, they are wrong. The other 2/3, they happen to be right, but only by sheer luck. Generally, to me, if an umpire says this, he is as much as saying that he doesn't know the rule involved, and is ruling on what he perceives as fair. I'd rather umpires know WHY they are making the correct ruling as much as I want them to make the correct ruling.

Case in point - the OP (and please don't take this personally). You had the rule right - but only on accident. You made the ruling because "I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do", and in this case, the ruling was right... but to me it's important that you rule the way you did because you KNOW the relevant rule. If a coach asks you about the call and you use the crutch, he will know you don't really know the rule. Much better for blue to say, "In ASA, the runner is not out when she unintentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play while she is standing on the base."

So much for making it short, eh? Anyway, that is the background of the sigh ... I hope you don't take it personally, but I also hope you (and all umpires) shy away from using the phrase, or at least, if you find yourself thinking that phrase, you will later check the book to see not only IF you were right, but WHY you were right.

I suppose not calling an illegal pitch because "she didn't gain an advantage" is out the question?

[argodad]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I suppose not calling an illegal pitch because "she didn't gain an advantage" is out the question?

My answer to that one is, "Good! Then she won't lose anything by pitching legally!"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I suppose not calling an illegal pitch because "she didn't gain an advantage" is out the question?

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying... are you saying that is a valid reason to not call an illegal pitch, or the opposite? Not sure how that fits what I'm talking about at all, really. Can you clarify? Sorry to be so obtuse.

[BretMan]

C'mon! Hugo even used TWO smilie things. Of course he's joking!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

C'mon! Hugo even used TWO smilie things. Of course he's joking!

I blame lack of coffee!!!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

8-8-13 Runner is not out when hit by a fair batted ball while touching a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play.

Also, ASA RS 33.A.1.c confirms the intentionally and that it applies to both with "the ball" and "fielder making a play". The punctuation (one continuous phrase after "intentionally") says that as well.

NFHS rule above is the same as ASA, except that ASA skips the first "when" and says "while" for the second "when" and does not say "fair".

NFHS does not have a case but with identical wording, any interpretation would have to be the same ----- no INT on base unless intentional.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I blame lack of coffee!!!

I knew I could count on Bret to splain...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I blame lack of coffee!!!

But you still didn't take it personally, right?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying... are you saying that is a valid reason to not call an illegal pitch, or the opposite? Not sure how that fits what I'm talking about at all, really. Can you clarify? Sorry to be so obtuse.

Oh and to splain why it fits in to what you were talking about....
It seems it's the same guys who say "She was only doing what she was supposed to do" that will say "But she isn't gaining an advantage",

I'm with you, they are both silly things to say.

[EsqUmp]

NCAA has good language for this situation:
Rule 12.19.14.1: "When the defensive player, while watching the flight of a ball, bumps a base runner who is standing on a base and fails to make a catch on a catchable ball, the base runner shall not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional. A base runner must vacated any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the base runner has contact with a legally occupied base when the hindrance occurs."

[tidefanintenn]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Without making it a tirade again, or personal, I'll summarize.

IMHO
"She was only doing what she was supposed to do" is a crutch. It's a coach's crutch that generally means either, "I don't know the rule and don't understand this ruling." or "I think that rule is unfair". It's an umpire's crutch that often means, "I don't know the rules, but this ruling SEEMS right."

I would say that at least 1/3 of the time someone says this, they are wrong. The other 2/3, they happen to be right, but only by sheer luck. Generally, to me, if an umpire says this, he is as much as saying that he doesn't know the rule involved, and is ruling on what he perceives as fair. I'd rather umpires know WHY they are making the correct ruling as much as I want them to make the correct ruling.

Case in point - the OP (and please don't take this personally). You had the rule right - but only on accident. You made the ruling because "I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do", and in this case, the ruling was right... but to me it's important that you rule the way you did because you KNOW the relevant rule. If a coach asks you about the call and you use the crutch, he will know you don't really know the rule. Much better for blue to say, "In ASA, the runner is not out when she unintentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play while she is standing on the base."

So much for making it short, eh? Anyway, that is the background of the sigh ... I hope you don't take it personally, but I also hope you (and all umpires) shy away from using the phrase, or at least, if you find yourself thinking that phrase, you will later check the book to see not only IF you were right, but WHY you were right.

nothing personal taken. I ruled that way because i felt that was correct according to the rules not what i though was fair. I guess my biggest mistake was listening to the coach try and sell his interference plea. This is my second year of doing high school softball and i pride myself in trying to not only know the rules but apply them properly. I got caught overthinking the situation and confused myself. Thanks for you guys I have several pointers to take and implement in my games. Thank you for that

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

NCAA has good language for this situation:
Rule 12.19.14.1: "When the defensive player, while watching the flight of a ball, bumps a base runner who is standing on a base and fails to make a catch on a catchable ball, the base runner shall not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional. A base runner must vacated any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the base runner has contact with a legally occupied base when the hindrance occurs."

Again....you bring in a ruleset that was not part of the original scenario......

Congrats........

Joel