The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scranton, Pa.
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
However, they are expected (explicitly by rule) to not interfere. Remember, the act does not need to be intentional:



Yes, umpires discuss this play all the time. I'm surprised someone hasn't said "if she was doing what she was suppose to do . . ." Well, she suppose to not interfere.

I'm a pretty hard line guy on this, and I teach the hard line stance. The key to Bret's language is "instant" -- anything longer than an instant, I've got interference. For example, in the linked video, yes, interference (that was way more than an instant). The other one was the Tennessee player (shown in the SUP online clinic). I've got interference on that one too, and that was real close to "instant." You don't have to give yourself up, but you cannot interfere.

I only posted the NCAA rule, but the same in all codes.

Yes, I know. Other will disagree.
I know this will come up Sunday, but the definition says :

1.72 Interference- equipment or the act of an offensive player...

What "act" of interference did she commit?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
I know this will come up Sunday, but the definition says :

1.72 Interference- equipment or the act of an offensive player...

What "act" of interference did she commit?
The runner in the video prevented F3 from catching the ball and subsequently retiring the BR at first (other than timing issues aside, being that it was a dropped line drive, the BR could have made it to first prior to the ball arriving). The Tennessee play is a better demonstration of this type of interference.

Update: as I look at the video, the ball strikes the runner after the BR arrived at first, therefore not an opportunity for an out. The latter is what we should judge the act, not that "she couldn't get out of the way."

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:14pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scranton, Pa.
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
The runner in the video prevented F3 from catching the ball and subsequently retiring the BR at first (other than timing issues aside, being that it was a dropped line drive, the BR could have made it to first prior to the ball arriving). The Tennessee play is a better demonstration of this type of interference.

Update: as I look at the video, the ball strikes the runner after the BR arrived at first, therefore not an opportunity for an out. The latter is what we should judge the act, not that "she couldn't get out of the way."
Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no act of interference in that video.

Last edited by PATRICK; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:28pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no Amy of interference in that video.
Who exactly is Amy?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no Amy of interference in that video.
I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scranton, Pa.
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?
I totally disagree with this being interference, bit I will call their ball the way they want it called. I don't have to like it.

They are fostering a dodgeball mentality.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
I totally disagree with this being interference, bit I will call their ball the way they want it called. I don't have to like it.

They are fostering a dodgeball mentality.
Don't call this interference. It's not.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Don't call this interference. It's not.
So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?
Oh dear.

Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post.

(At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Oh dear.

Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post.

(At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).
Yeah, show me the "handout." There is no SUP handout. And get yourself an NCAA manual, Interference is one of the IN FOCUS item, specifically mentioning "interference by a runner already being declared out." No mention if this was being called incorrectly in 2012.

There may be handout from your group. It was panned on here, just like now. But what side has the rule support?

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:01pm.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:20pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
What "act" of interference did she commit?
I would suspect those who agree this is interference will say the "act" is continuing to run in the base line after being retired.

Personally, I don't agree with it. But I come from a baseball umpiring background, and "over there" retired runners aren't expected to immediately disappear, as BretMan mentions. In fact, some baseball rule sets explicitly state that if a runner continues to advance after being retired, he/she shall not by that act alone be considered as interfering.

I'm just trying to find out if there is something similar in softball.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 219
If you been watching the CWS the last few years, you've seen the defense utilize this rule by throwing at the runner coming into second for the interference and dead ball double play. I would thought the NCAA would do something about this before someone is injured! Coaches are teaching their players to throw at the runner because of the rule verbage.

Last edited by roadking; Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:13am.
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
Interference by retired runner? Sco53 Baseball 4 Tue Apr 10, 2012 03:54pm
Interference by retired runner charliej47 Baseball 16 Mon Jun 22, 2009 09:00am
Can a retired runner be appealed? dash_riprock Baseball 11 Sat Jan 26, 2008 09:22pm
retired runner CecilOne Softball 16 Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:23am
interference by retired runner shipwreck Softball 15 Thu Sep 18, 2003 07:00am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1