need help on NCAA new rule for runner leaving early

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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?

[tcannizzo]

TWP = Third World Play - bordering on the absurd...

[topper]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

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.

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I did.

Sorry, I meant IRISHMAFIA.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

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?

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.

What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling?

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.

[topper]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call.

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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........

There are rules covering that as well

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

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

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

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

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

LOL.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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.

[Andy]

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....

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

LOL.

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

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.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by topper

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!