What do you have!

[IRISHMAFIA]

[quote=mbcrowder;850621]Yes, but we're talking about an obvious thing here.[quote]

IMO, that is just asking for unnecessary trouble. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to the next 30 umpires. That's why an umpire always covers ground rules at the beginning of a game, because every umpire may see the field differently.

A runner or batter runner stopping the progress of a moving ball on purpose.

You mean like the defense doing the same thing for the same reason?

Should be much easier to see intent here than in many of the other situations where we're required to read minds.

I don't think it would be that easy. I've seen too many balls go in directions no one expected at multiple speeds.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You mean like the defense doing the same thing for the same reason?

But the defense has the fundamental right to decide when/if to field a batted ball. Batters and runners don't have that right.

The only purpose a batter or runner would touch a foul ball that appears is going fair is to intentionally keep the batter or runner from being in jeopardy of being retired. There is ample precedent in all the rules of all sanctioning baseball and softball organizations that batters and runners are not allowed to do that other than by legally batting the ball and legally running the bases. As far as I know, ASA is alone in this stand.

Why do the rule sets call a batter out when she bunts a pitch foul with two strikes? It's because she is not allowed to intentionally (and bunts are intentional taps) keep herself up to the plate until she finally gets a pitch she really likes. The original rulesmakers felt that purposely fouling off pitches by bunting them gave the offense an unfair advantage. To maintain balance between offense and defense, those rulesmakers felt the batter with two strikes should put the ball in play. If she fails to do so with a full swing and fouls it off, she's given the benefit of the doubt. But those rulesmakers felt that if foul bunts with two strikes weren't regulated, batters would tip that balance.

Oh well, I will respect ASA's position on this, but I obviously don't like it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

But the defense has the fundamental right to decide when/if to field a batted ball. Batters and runners don't have that right.

Really? Who is this, Bubba Clinton? Rule citation, please.

The only purpose a batter or runner would touch a foul ball that appears is going fair is to intentionally keep the batter or runner from being in jeopardy of being retired. There is ample precedent in all the rules of all sanctioning baseball and softball organizations that batters and runners are not allowed to do that other than by legally batting the ball and legally running the bases. As far as I know, ASA is alone in this stand.

Yes, it is called being consistent with the rules. And how do you know it is intentional? Maybe he just figures he is helping out the defense by stopping or retrieving a foul ball. Happens all the time.

Why do the rule sets call a batter out when she bunts a pitch foul with two strikes? It's because she is not allowed to intentionally (and bunts are intentional taps) keep herself up to the plate until she finally gets a pitch she really likes. The original rulesmakers felt that purposely fouling off pitches by bunting them gave the offense an unfair advantage. To maintain balance between offense and defense, those rulesmakers felt the batter with two strikes should put the ball in play. If she fails to do so with a full swing and fouls it off, she's given the benefit of the doubt. But those rulesmakers felt that if foul bunts with two strikes weren't regulated, batters would tip that balance.

The original rule makers did not allow the bunt. Here is your rule citation

Softball Official Rules (1936):

Rule 19 - WHEN BATSMAN IS OUT.
Bunt Hit is Out Sec. 5. If he bunts or attempts to bunt as defined in Rule 16.

Rule 16 - A BUNT HIT BALL
Bunt -- When Not a Bunt
A Bunt is a batted ball, not swung at by the batsman, but met with the bat, and which does not go out of the infield. A ball which touches the bat while the batsman is attempting to avoid being hit by the pitched ball shall not be considered a bunted ball under this rule.

So, if you really want to go with the original rule makers, I guess we better outlaw the bunt. And why not, it would make it a safer game.

Oh well, I will respect ASA's position on this, but I obviously don't like it.

Why, as an umpire, do you care?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why, as an umpire, do you care?

Mike, this is uncalled for. You've posted numerous times what you think this rule or that rule SHOULD be. Many of us have. He cares, so do you, so do I, so do most of us here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Mike, this is uncalled for. You've posted numerous times what you think this rule or that rule SHOULD be. Many of us have. He cares, so do you, so do I, so do most of us here.

I don't think it is. I understand it, but solely as an umpire, why do we care about what we think is fair or not? How many times have you heard an umpire make up or bend a rule to be "fair"? Or this or that is not going to happen in my game because it isn't fair?

Many believe it isn't fair to allow a player to top the ball and hit a slow roller in the SP infield, but it's legal? And if you think that is an exaggeration, there have been some serious arguments on the Stadium field at the A level because there have been players come in and do just that. It is almost an automatic base hit, but it is legal.

I care about the consistency among rules, the ability to enforce them and the manner of application, and hopefully the ability to find logic though we all know that is a dream. IOW, how does it affect me as the umpire. Are there some rules I believe to be unfair or need fixing? Sure, that why there are rule changes. But as the umpire, it isn't my job to worry about fair unless the situation is not covered by a rule(s).

All this talk about the intention of the batter to keep the ball foul. What about the intention of the fielder who throws the glove from 20' to keep the ball foul? Is that fair? AFAIC, it is because the rule says it is.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think it is. I understand it, but solely as an umpire, why do we care about what we think is fair or not? How many times have you heard an umpire make up or bend a rule to be "fair"? Or this or that is not going to happen in my game because it isn't fair?

Understood ... but THIS post (or at least where it evolved) is about whether the rule SHOULD BE what it is, in ASA (and it kind of went there due to a response to one of your posts). I would NEVER EVER condone an umpire bending or ignoring a rule to satisfy his own personal sense of fairness --- in fact, you've seen me beat up umpires here for doing the same. However, we all (both of us included) have posted occasionally where we thought a rule should not be what it is. You're allowed to. I'm allowed to. It may not be our job ... but we care anyway. We shouldn't jump on someone for caring about changing a rule.

All this talk about the intention of the batter to keep the ball foul. What about the intention of the fielder who throws the glove from 20' to keep the ball foul? Is that fair? AFAIC, it is because the rule says it is.

Well ... tbh, I'm consistent here in that I don't think THAT is fair either. Same reason. they can't do it ON the field, why should they be able to do it on a ball that is in foul territory but not yet foul.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The original rule makers did not allow the bunt.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I was talking about baseball's original rule makers, which existed long before softball's original rules were written. That was the rationale they used to penalize foul bunts after two strikes, and one could only assume that when bunts became legal in softball, those rule makers used the same rationale.