The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 05:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
The NCAA Rules Interpreter is in attendance at the WCWS. This rule...which, because of the sit at UA, apparently was discussed. The rule (as currently written) has an affect and penalty. The umpires "huddled" together, as I understand it, to make sure they were on the same page as to the affect on this play. They agreed, and when it was explained it to the coaches, neither coach objected because they knew the rule.

Regardless of how much we may conject, opine, pontificate, object or project (ie...future actions by the defense) the rule was administered correctly!

There is one opinion that matters....and is the final determinate...

And it is not yours or mine!!

The umpires made the correct call at UA and in this case!!

Whether our opinion differs or not!!

Kudo's to them!!
Citation? I certainly cannot find anything which supports that call in either game.
__________________
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
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
The NCAA Rules Interpreter is in attendance at the WCWS. This rule...which, because of the sit at UA, apparently was discussed. The rule (as currently written) has an affect and penalty. The umpires "huddled" together, as I understand it, to make sure they were on the same page as to the affect on this play. They agreed, and when it was explained it to the coaches, neither coach objected because they knew the rule.

Regardless of how much we may conject, opine, pontificate, object or project (ie...future actions by the defense) the rule was administered correctly!

There is one opinion that matters....and is the final determinate...

And it is not yours or mine!!

The umpires made the correct call at UA and in this case!!

Whether our opinion differs or not!!

Kudo's to them!!
If you are saying they administered the rule correctly, you are right. However, the JUDGEMENT that this (and the 1st one) was interference is blatantly horrific. If their legitimate judgement is that these runners interfered, they their judgement is so poor that they don't belong on the field - at ANY level.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 10:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
The NCAA Rules Interpreter is in attendance at the WCWS. This rule...which, because of the sit at UA, apparently was discussed. The rule (as currently written) has an affect and penalty. The umpires "huddled" together, as I understand it, to make sure they were on the same page as to the affect on this play. They agreed, and when it was explained it to the coaches, neither coach objected because they knew the rule.

Regardless of how much we may conject, opine, pontificate, object or project (ie...future actions by the defense) the rule was administered correctly!

There is one opinion that matters....and is the final determinate...

And it is not yours or mine!!

The umpires made the correct call at UA and in this case!!

Whether our opinion differs or not!!

Kudo's to them!!
You are absolutely correct in that the rule was administered correctly...I don't think that is in question.

What I (and almost everybody else on the board) would like to know is what act of interference did the runner commit in both instances? Yes, I understand that this is a judgement call, but I certainly didn't see any act of interference by the runner in either case. Granted, I was not there and only saw the play on TV.....maybe the umpire(s) on the field saw something we didn't. If so, I would like to know what that was so that I know to look for that same thing when I am on the field.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 10:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
You are absolutely correct in that the rule was administered correctly...I don't think that is in question.

What I (and almost everybody else on the board) would like to know is what act of interference did the runner commit in both instances? Yes, I understand that this is a judgement call, but I certainly didn't see any act of interference by the runner in either case. Granted, I was not there and only saw the play on TV.....maybe the umpire(s) on the field saw something we didn't. If so, I would like to know what that was so that I know to look for that same thing when I am on the field.
FWIW.....
People I am discussing this with (who support the call) do not need an runner to commit an "act" . They are satisfied that she interfered simply because she was where she was.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 11:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoTafurst View Post
FWIW.....
People I am discussing this with (who support the call) do not need an runner to commit an "act" . They are satisfied that she interfered simply because she was where she was.
Wonder if they would say the same if it were there DD smashed in the face with a throw that never should have been made. I assume all your friends think every runner should be required to eat the dirt since turning in or out can and will result in the same INT call.

No problem, I'm sure the NAPIL support such idiocy, 100%
__________________
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
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 11:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Wonder if they would say the same if it were there DD smashed in the face with a throw that never should have been made. I assume all your friends think every runner should be required to eat the dirt since turning in or out can and will result in the same INT call.

No problem, I'm sure the NAPIL support such idiocy, 100%
Don't shoot the messanger.... I don't even play piano.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoTafurst View Post
Don't shoot the messanger.... I don't even play piano.
If you noticed, I was talking about your "friends"
__________________
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
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 06, 2012, 02:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northeastern NC
Posts: 487
Link to video

Here is a link to the video if you want to see it again. It is hard for me not to think F6 wasn't throwing at R1.


Oregon Shortstop Hits Baseball Runner In The Face With Softball | SportsGrid
__________________
TCBLUE13
NFHS, PONY, Babe Ruth, LL, NSA

Softball in the Bible
"In the big-inning"

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
Question from WCWS HollowMan Softball 52 Mon May 28, 2012 09:43pm
wcws ump ronald Softball 14 Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:00am
Memphis v. Tennesee SAK Basketball 6 Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:55am
WCWS - Umpires PublicBJ Softball 10 Wed Jun 15, 2005 08:08am
WCWS last night coachfanmom Softball 7 Fri Jun 03, 2005 01:21pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1