The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoTafurst View Post
No, see Topper's answer and reference.
I'm not sure why, but leaving early is always the last option.
There is a multi-page guidance of scenarios which I went over at the beginning of the season.
Did you get as bad of a headache as I did after reading all 11 pages and trying to keep all the different scenarios straight in your head??
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Hugo, you weren't told correctly. Cut and pasted from Dee Abrahamson's rules interpretations on NCAA Home Plate Arbiter:

3-5-12 12.20 10.8 15.2.13
Runner Leaves Early, Illegal Pitch, Pitcher Holds Ball

Play: Pitcher makes three revolutions with her arm before letting go of the pitch. After the first revolution, the base runner on first base leaves early. OR Pitcher correctly and legally follows the pitching rules except does not release the pitch causing the base runner to erroneously leave the base in anticipation of the release.

Ruling: This is an exception to the typical effect for the double violation of leaving early and an illegal pitch. If the pitcher fails to deliver the pitch in the legal manner causing the base runner to leave early in anticipation of the proper release of the pitch, the defensive head coach is not rewarded with having the option of selecting the outcome. Instead, enforce only the penalty for illegal pitch and warn both the pitcher and head coach that a repeat of this unsporting behavior will result in their ejection.

15.2.13 says “the umpire shall not impose an effect on a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the effect would be an advantage to the offending team.” In this case, intentionally violating the pitching rule to cause an opponent to violate the base running rule is unsporting and should not be rewarded by allowing the defensive coach to have the runner called out for leaving early.
Steve could you post the page number of Ask Dee that was on? I can't seem to find it in either my printed copy of when looking at the PDF file on line.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp View Post
Steve could you post the page number of Ask Dee that was on? I can't seem to find it in either my printed copy of when looking at the PDF file on line.
Thanks
Top of Page 2.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
And just think how much easier it would be if they just left the rule like it has been for the past 75+ years.
Exactly! One play in one game with the right (or wrong) coach on the wrong end of a double play cancelled due to a leave early. I guess the rest of the coaches on the rules committee didn't want to buck the chairman, or didn't think this change was a big deal. Probably both.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
I understand the reasoning behind the change, but there are just so many possible post-infraction scenarios, there just has to be a better way to address it.

I still believe this change came out of a few "what ifs" in a game where a coach believes s/he came out on the short end.

Much like an INT call, sometimes is may just be more prudent to stop everything and apply the rule, reset and start all over. After all, as we all know, you can "what if" everything to death and still never come up with a perfect resolution.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by topper View Post
Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.
SHHHHH...some college coach may hear you and propose this as a rule change......
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by topper View Post
Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.
And it could ASSUMING just about everything that happens afterward would have happened had the umpire not declared it a dead ball.

But you run into the same set of convoluted issues if you try to extend the play. You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.
Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by topper View Post
Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?
Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.
NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 870
TWP = Third World Play - bordering on the absurd...
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Thanks, Tony. Second new term I've learned this month on here. The other was "meeb".

Now if Mike could explain what he meant by it, I would appreciate it.

Last edited by topper; Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:01am. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by topper View Post
Thanks, Tony. Second new term I've learned this month on here. The other was "meep".

Now if Mike could explain what he meant by it, I would appreciate it.
I did.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by topper View Post
NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?
fair enough. So revise my statement to "in this case". In MOST cases of interference, you don't wait to see of a play can be made anyway - you call it when it happens.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
leaving a base early steveshane67 Softball 8 Mon Aug 31, 2009 07:40am
Leaving First Early tibear Baseball 4 Fri Apr 20, 2007 06:36pm
IP or leaving early? Dakota Softball 7 Sat Nov 13, 2004 01:15am
Runners leaving early Dakota Softball 7 Thu Jan 15, 2004 05:07pm
LL Majors - Leaving Early cmckenna Baseball 2 Wed May 29, 2002 05:36pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1