The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 09:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
This is NCAA... they still have the "about to receive" clause, don't they?
But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 11:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.
And I'm pretty sure that refers to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.
__________________
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
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 11:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.
In NCAA's words, when both the offense and the defense are doing what they legally can and a collision happens. Those codes that removed "about to receive" now require possession to avoid the obstruction call. Not so with NCAA. If you have "about to receive" in play, but the defense does not have possession, and the runner is not illegally "crashing", and there is contact, you merely have a wreck. The term "wreck" (you said you didn't like it...) is actually used in the NCAA Umpire's Manual (at least the one I have a copy of; several years old by now).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
The play from the original post is at about the 39:20 mark in the replay on ESPN3. F4 doesnt field the ball cleanly, hits her in the stomach and rebounds forward slightly just when the runner contacts her.
thanks
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
And I'm pretty sure that refers to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.
Sure. My comment was more global than the OP. The general term of "train wreck" nearly always means, "I can't decide if that was OBS or INT, so I'll call nothing".

(Not always ... but nearly so)
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 12:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
In NCAA's words, when both the offense and the defense are doing what they legally can and a collision happens. Those codes that removed "about to receive" now require possession to avoid the obstruction call. Not so with NCAA. If you have "about to receive" in play, but the defense does not have possession, and the runner is not illegally "crashing", and there is contact, you merely have a wreck. The term "wreck" (you said you didn't like it...) is actually used in the NCAA Umpire's Manual (at least the one I have a copy of; several years old by now).
I know it's in the book, and I see your point. I'm not saying there's no such thing as TW. Just that a very large majority of the time when an umpire uses the term, they are not, in fact, describing an actual TW - they are missing the call one way or the other.

Regarding ATR - we're taught that ATR means that the fielder can move into the basepath to receive a thrown ball as the ball becomes closer to the fielder than the runner. There is no case where a collision could occur where the fielder is about to receive a ball that is closer to him than the runner - the collision makes that distance zero.

I will say that I omitted a significant TW from my original statement though - that being the batter getting out of the box as the catcher's coming out to field a bunt.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 01:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
...There is no case where a collision could occur where the fielder is about to receive a ball that is closer to him than the runner - the collision makes that distance zero...
Not to belabor the point (since I think we agree, here), but you are using precise physics to describe a playing action being observed by a human. In the situation where both ball and runner arrive at the same (observable) time, it is still a wreck.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 02:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Not to belabor the point (since I think we agree, here), but you are using precise physics to describe a playing action being observed by a human. In the situation where both ball and runner arrive at the same (observable) time, it is still a wreck.
Fair enough ... I just find the term immensely overused given our current rule-set. I see your point though.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
Video of collision

Recording 2012521133248 - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 04:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
In NCAA's words, when both the offense and the defense are doing what they legally can and a collision happens. Those codes that removed "about to receive" now require possession to avoid the obstruction call. Not so with NCAA. If you have "about to receive" in play, but the defense does not have possession, and the runner is not illegally "crashing", and there is contact, you merely have a wreck. The term "wreck" (you said you didn't like it...) is actually used in the NCAA Umpire's Manual (at least the one I have a copy of; several years old by now).
Term is still used in the 2012 Manual....there's a paragraph with the heading...WRECKS
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 04:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
And I'm pretty sure that refers to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.
Refers to both Mike, it (9.3) reads......"in the act of fielding a batted ball or about to receive a thrown ball......"
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 04:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp View Post
Refers to both Mike, it (9.3) reads......"in the act of fielding a batted ball or about to receive a thrown ball......"
Um... no.

It says what you quoted... it does not say, "about to receive a fielded ball or about to receive a thrown ball."

ATR refers only to a thrown ball, like Mike said.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 05:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Personally, I thought this was a bad no-call ... and then even worse, a horrible mistake allowing the runner to score.
Let's put the part in red aside for a moment, and for this discussion let's set aside wether or not we're in agreement with U1's judgement of the play being a wreck or INF.

What I see on the video....
He reads the play, waits a second, decides he has a wreck, gives a clear and emphatic safe signal, two players are down, all hell is about to break loose, he keeps his head and focus, stays with the play, and is on top of the tag play for the out on the NDSC runner who was sprawled on the ground and crawling trying to reach 2nd base, then immediately has the Hawaii HC in his face arguing the call, handles himself well during the argument, then ejects the coach calmly and professionally.
All in all, IMO I thought it was a damm good piece of umpiring on his part.....there was a lot of stuff going on all in rapid fire.

Now the part in red. Agree, 100% a horrible mistake.

How could it have been avoided is my question? And I raise the question not to be judgmental on the crew, but to try to learn from their error. I mean lets be honest, this could happen to any one of us. I think in this particular situation, especially with not having been involved in the play, or any part of the argument and subsequent ejection, that if I'm the PU I've got to take the responsibility here.

Being as how the out at 2nd was the third out of the inning, ESPN broke away for a commercial. So we have know way of knowing what (if anything) the crew did during the time between innings.

And think about this......why/how didn't a "red flag" go up with any (of I'm sure numerous) game administrative personnel entering all the game info into a computerized box score, inning by inning, Game Track, etc. programs or on-site NCAA game staff.....or for that matter the Hawaii coaching staff?

Lots of knowledgeable people missed this......not just the umpiring crew.

Thoughts?

Last edited by KJUmp; Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:18pm.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 05:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp View Post
Let's put the part in red aside for a moment, and for this discussion let's set aside wether or not we're in agreement with U1's judgement of the play being a wreck or INF.

What I see on the video....
He reads the play, waits a second, decides he has a wreck, gives a clear and emphatic safe signal, two players are down, all hell is about to break loose, he keeps his head and focus, stays with the play, and is on top of the tag play for the out on the NDSC runner who was sprawled on the ground and crawling trying to reach 2nd base, then immediately has the Hawaii HC in his face arguing the call, handles himself well during the argument, then ejects the coach calmly and professionally.
All in all, IMO I thought it was a damm good piece of umpiring on his part.....there was a lot of stuff going on all in rapid fire.

Now the part in red. Agree, 100% a horrible mistake.

How could it have been avoided is my question? And I raise the question not to be judgmental on the crew, but to try to learn from their error. I mean lets be honest, this could happen to any one of us. I think in this particular situation, especially with not having been involved in the play, or any part of the argument and subsequent ejection, that if I'm the PU I've got to take the responsibility here.

Being as how the out at 2nd was the third out of the inning, ESPN broke away for a commercial. So we have know way of knowing what (if anything) the crew did during the time between innings.

And think about this......why/how didn't a "red flag" go up with any (of I'm sure numerous) game administrative personnel entering all the game info into a computerized box score, inning by inning, Game Track, etc. program or on-site NCAA game staff.....or for that matter the Hawaii coaching staff?

Thoughts?
So, I'd guess that Hawaii's HC doesn't throw himself out if the BU realizes the run doesn't count and comes out with: Coach, this wasn't interference because ... but the runner was tagged out for the third out of the inning anyway, so even if I called interference the result of the play is still no runs scoring.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 21, 2012, 05:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Regarding the issue of allowing the run to score, I think that it is possible that the plate umpire may have thought that R1 (NCAA) actually touched 2nd base when she tumbled over. Then in an effort to get back to the base, was tagged out after the lead runner scored.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
wcws ump ronald Softball 14 Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:00am
WCWS Umpires? Dholloway1962 Softball 33 Mon May 18, 2009 11:47am
WCWS - Umpires PublicBJ Softball 10 Wed Jun 15, 2005 08:08am
WCWS last night coachfanmom Softball 7 Fri Jun 03, 2005 01:21pm
WCWS: mechanics? LMan Softball 10 Tue Jun 01, 2004 02:51pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1