The Official Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Today's first Oregon-Texas game. (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/91380-todays-first-oregon-texas-game.html)

Big Slick Tue May 29, 2012 09:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpireErnie (Post 843626)

Another interesting point at 2:57:00. Runners on 3B and 2B, 1 out, pop up to F6. Runner retreating to 2B trips F6 as she is trying to catch the pop up. No initial call. F6 makes the catch after falling down. Blues circle the wagons and after further review come up with INT on the runner. Since the ball becomes dead the catch never happened, and it was not going to be a double play. So the batter-runner was placed at 1B with a fielder's choice. There were a lot of Texas fans booing this; one notable fan calling the umpires "spineless" but I think they got the call right.
I believe this play was not called correctly under 12-19-1, exception 2:
2. If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out.

IMO, the pop up is very much "routine"

MD Longhorn Tue May 29, 2012 09:25am
Quote:
F6 makes the catch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 843810)
If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball
Hmm.

Big Slick Tue May 29, 2012 09:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 843812)
Hmm.
She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

IRISHMAFIA Tue May 29, 2012 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 843810)
I believe this play was not called correctly under 12-19-1, exception 2:
2. If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out.

IMO, the pop up is very much "routine"
Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.

Big Slick Tue May 29, 2012 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 843844)
Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.
Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

AtlUmpSteve Tue May 29, 2012 11:59am
I believe the question is why this isn't also listed under 12.9.7, Base Runner is out when she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. I believe this is the section everyone has hung their hat on until now.

IRISHMAFIA Tue May 29, 2012 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 843846)
Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).
But ASA's reference to fair or foul at the rule level is a waste of space. A fly ball is a fly ball, fair or foul. This is the type of extaneous wording that is placed just to satisfy those who want to read something into a rule that isn't there.

IRISHMAFIA Tue May 29, 2012 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 843849)
I believe the question is why this isn't also listed under 12.9.7, Base Runner is out when she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. I believe this is the section everyone has hung their hat on until now.
Well, I cannot get half the people to turn one page sometimes, let alone 10 :D

Big Slick Tue May 29, 2012 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 843850)
But ASA's reference to fair or foul at the rule level is a waste of space. A fly ball is a fly ball, fair or foul. This is the type of extaneous wording that is placed just to satisfy those who want to read something into a rule that isn't there.
Actually, it isn't a waste of space. Both NFHS and NCAA has specific language if the fly ball is fair or foul, with different effects. ASA has the same effect on any fly ball (ok, so maybe that is a waste of space to say "fair or foul").

ronald Tue May 29, 2012 02:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 843846)
Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).
I am sorry if I am dense on this one but to me it is a no brainer that br and runner are out on this play. I learned that one a long time ago.

It sounds to me that NCAA has created a cluster smudge with the rule book on this play. Comments?

Big Slick Tue May 29, 2012 03:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronald (Post 843883)
I am sorry if I am dense on this one but to me it is a no brainer that br and runner are out on this play. I learned that one a long time ago.

It sounds to me that NCAA has created a cluster smudge with the rule book on this play. Comments?
How?
It is almost word for word with ASA and NFHS. The only issue that has arisen is that NCAA rule book added the Interference section (and moved obstruction to the new "Defense" rule) a few years ago. This rule can be found in the general section of interference 12-19), not under the section of "runner is out . . ." (12-9-8).

MD Longhorn Tue May 29, 2012 04:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 843815)
She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."
I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

CecilOne Tue May 29, 2012 04:55pm
Where is that lawyer? Obviously, the INT prevented the catch from being routine, so it prevented a routine catch. ;) ;) :)

Crabby_Bob Tue May 29, 2012 05:01pm
As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"

IRISHMAFIA Tue May 29, 2012 05:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 843906)
As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"
I would think it would be more along the line of ability ot effort.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56am.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1