![]() |
|
|
|||
From the NFHS Softball Case Book:
"8.2.6 SITUATION B: B1 hits a ball off the tip of the bat causing the ball to spin just outside the foul line. As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore, she (a) kicks or (b) hits the ball with her bat to prevent it from becoming fair. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If in the umpire's judgment the ball could have become fair, B1 shall be declared out." Pretty cut-n-dried. And consistent. I also contend that under ASA RS #24A, the batter is out for 1. and 2. under ASA. The supplement says, "If, when the bat contacts the ball [a second time] a batter’s entire foot is completely outside the batter’s box, the batter is out." In my 1. and 2., the batter is running up the first base line and intentionally hits the ball with the bat, so she clearly has a foot out of the batter's box. Or am I wrong in my assumption in what the RS language intends here? If it is indeed an out in ASA for 1. and 2., then why isn't it an out for 3? That's where I feel the rulings are inconsistent in ASA.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker Last edited by Manny A; Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 07:13am. |
|
|||
It is interesting to note the actual rule that case play is apparently referencing:
Quote:
Question 1: change BR to R1 on 3rd. What is the applicable rule, and what is the ruling? Question 2: Delete the words "As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore," (removing the magic mind reading going on in the case play), and what is the ruling, and what is your rule backing. Answer for both BR and R1.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
We have an authoritative NFHS interpretation on how to handle the three scenarios I proposed. So what if the actual rule the interpretation references doesn't specifically mention a batted ball in foul territory? It is clear to me that the case book play directs us that a batted ball that the umpire judges may go fair, is treated exactly the same, for all intents and purposes under 8-2-6, as a batted ball in fair territory. Quote:
![]() Does that mean that NFHS gives other runners carte blanche permission to intentionally contact foul balls that umpires judge may go fair, while specifically prohibiting batter-runners from doing so? Or does that mean they've inadvertently left this unaddressed? I'm guessing it's the latter. Quote:
As for R1, my answer to your Question 1 applies.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Bottom line: this is someone's idea of what is "fair" and is not backed by the rules themselves. It requires the umpire to read the mind of the BR/R and further to determine what "has a chance" or "could become fair" means. Where is the line here? Does "has a chance"/"could become fair" include ALL slow rollers? Does it include a ball rolling away from the foul line but with enough speed so a bump in the dirt could change its direction? "In foul ground" is a firm situation. I wish someone WOULD demand to know why R1 is treated differently from BR in this situation. The hue and cry from coaches if such a change was attempted would at least be entertaining... ever heard coaches tell runners on 3B to advance in foul territory and retreat in fair? What happens to that? JMO.
__________________
Tom Last edited by Dakota; Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 10:00am. |
|
|||
Quote:
No different than other grey areas in the rules, Tom. Umpires have to decide what bases runners could have reached minus an obstruction. They have to judge whether or not another fielder might have made an out on a batted ball that gets by an initial fielder and contacts a runner. They have to read a runner's mind when she keeps running after being retired. It's why we get paid the big bux.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
By rule, without requiring any mind-reading for intent, nor is it a gray area.
Quote:
__________________
Tony |
|
|||
Quote:
A doesn't mention it, but 7.6.K specifically notes this is referring to a FAIR ball. You can turn this anyway you want, ASA does not forbid either the offense or defense contacting a foul ball.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
I find the bolded terminology strange and confusing. It's not a pitched ball anymore. You hit a batted ball a second time (or for the first time as a batted ball.)
|
|
|||
I don't disagree this could be confusing, but my belief is that in this case the reference is to a pitched ball has been hit by the bat, but has not yet reached a discernible point where the ball has gained a defined status of fair or foul.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|