Sorry, I meant IRISHMAFIA.

I don't buy this as a "requirement". This paragraph is offered as one of many examples of what could be interference on the runner. And the quantifier is that there must be a chance for the fielder to make a play.

See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call. Simply because one did something which others may believe "could" have been INT, doesn't make it so.

In your play, maybe F6 does make the catch, but maybe the catch could have been more routine had their not been INT. But maybe she doesn't make the catch, but ends up trying to turn a deuce, but throws the ball into the stands and the BR is OBS by F3, and R1 plows over an unsuspecting F5 and is then picked up by the 3B coach and pushed towards home while F9 just went into labor and is down in RCF.......

T.W.P. We can all try to justify anything we want regardless of which way we prefer to slant it, but I believe we are better off as is. At least, until you can find the perfect, intelligent umpire that will not screw up a call. Like to admit it or not, there are umpires working all levels of ball that are somewhat clueless and misapply some of the simplest rules in the book. How in the world can a team expect any consistency from an umpire if so many "what if's" are available on what should be a simple play.

My vote goes for the ruling to remain an immediate dead ball.

It is an example that specifies what constitutes INT when there is physical contact between runner and fielder, ending in "and was prevented from doing so." I would consider it a requirement. The other examples deal with specifics of other runner violations.

The coach may then ask for you to support it in the rule book if the play were made.

There are rules covering that as well

No argument here.

Fair enough. Perhaps some re-wording of the rule would make that more supportable.

Really? You think I'm going worry about citing a rule book to justify an INT call?. Yeah, GFL w/that.

LOL.

Let me help you - you are talking to someone who is usually IN THE ROOM when rule changes are discussed and written.

And don't I wish I had the pull to get some of this stuff "adjusted" to make it easier for the user. :D

Like others on this site, being in the room just means you are allowed to possibly take part in the discussion, in some circumstances some have a vote, on how things go and, at least, get the purpose for change or rejection of, first hand. I find this makes it much easier to explain changes or reasons for not changing something. Another reason I believe each State/Metro should have their UIC or umpire representative in attendence.

I attended my first ASA Council Meeting this last November.

Being able to be in the various rooms and committee meetings when rule changes were discussed was quite fascinating. It is very interesting to hear the rationale behind why the author thinks changes are necessary as well as the discussion back and forth.

And of course the Yeungling was good too....:)

I have no idea what you worry about when on the field. However, the NCAA rules has a specific protocol when it comes to protest situations, and one part involves opening that pesky little rule book. There will be no need for you to cite anything.

Thanks for the help, but I'd be interested to know when the last time he was IN THE ROOM at an NCAA Softball Rules Committee meeting.

Now let me help you - get back to the shallow end of the pool and start another thread about how last night's 10U league game went or how stupid you think the local rules are.

Wow....I think I hung in longer than most at McGriff's and Eteamz before they became more about insults and trolling than a free exchange of softball umpiring ideas and conversations.

I'm willing to hang in here for a while longer to see if the trolls and such get tired and just go away, if not....then, Thanks, Dave!

If you're meaning me, then I will say that there was a free exchange of ideas and opinions taking place. At least until the "Let me help you" post. I simply responded in kind. If that's trolling in you opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

If you took offense to my "let me help you" post, I'm sorry - offending you was not the intent. Helping you understand that you were not talking to a neophyte was my intent.

And I surely don't think that comments regarding the level of ball I work are an appropriate response. THAT is what he was calling trolling. You don't know me - you have no clue what I work or where. I suspect I've worked far higher than you would guess, but that is really not the point of my posts. Yes, I do work the very very little ones on occasion as well - my assignors (well, most of them) do a great job mixing it up, letting us work different levels of games as well as with different levels of partners (I was in one league for quite a while where my assignor loved to put me with the guy who needed some work ... I'm certainly willing to do that - but I never ever got to work games for that assignor where I got to learn from umpires significantly better than me (and there were several in that group) - my current assignor realizes that is not best for the group and gives a good mix. If that means I have to work a 10U game every once in a while, or work at some place who's game is closer to Calvinball than softball ... so that someone else can learn from someone or work on something, so be it - happy to do it. For you to denigrate working those games says more about you than it says about me, frankly.

Now let me help you - get back to the shallow end of the pool and start another thread about how last night's 10U league game went or how stupid you think the local rules are.

Question is are you Clara or Cosmo....either/or, maybe you should emulate them.

It would be difficult for me since I have no idea what you mean.

The majority of this topic is useless, should be offline. :(

Personal bickering and insults do not belong. :mad:
Please give it up.