The Official Forum
Page 3 of 6 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Retouch home after leaving field (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/94361-retouch-home-after-leaving-field.html)

Manny A Sat Mar 16, 2013 06:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoTafurst (Post 884958)
I would think the umpire that was aware that she missed the plate, knowing that there was a possible appeal, would know.
OK maybe not would, but should.:D
True. :o But with other runners on base, the umpire's focus may be elsewhere. I suppose if it was obvious (e.g., she comes out after action has settled) it would be easy. I was thinking of the scenario where she's just entering the dugout and suddenly goes to the plate when a teammate makes her aware of the miss.

HugoTafurst Sat Mar 16, 2013 05:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 884977)
True. :o But with other runners on base, the umpire's focus may be elsewhere. I suppose if it was obvious (e.g., she comes out after action has settled) it would be easy. I was thinking of the scenario where she's just entering the dugout and suddenly goes to the plate when a teammate makes her aware of the miss.
sometimes ****olah happens and you have to deal with it.
If no one saw her in the dugout, she wasn't in the dug out.

Insane Blue Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 884949)
FWIW, I wouldn't have an Out in A. What play on B2 was hindered when F1 threw to F2? I would send B2 back to first base.

And, OBTW, I wonder which umpire would actually see R1 enter and then leave the dugout. The only time I ever focus on a player entering the dugout is when it's the batter on an uncaught third strike.
What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.

Manny A Sun Mar 17, 2013 08:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Blue (Post 885034)
What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.
Speaking FED, I would use rule 8-6-15 and 8-6-18. While -15 speaks of the on-deck batter, it mentions that if no play is obvious when the on-deck batter (and, as a viable extension, any offensive player not involved in base running) interferes, nobody is out and runners return. And -18 requires a runner who has scored or has been retired to interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Whereas example "B" in youngump's scenarios clearly shows that R1 prevented the defense from playing on B2, example "A" does not.

jmkupka Sun Mar 17, 2013 08:36am
If B1 did not enter the dugout, was pushed back by a teammate ('you missed the plate!') should she be immediately called out? If defense saw none of this, and did not appeal the missed base, would the run still count?
While the answer to the first question is obviously yes, wouldn't calling her out give a clue to the defense that an appeal might be needed?
Sorry for the semi-hijack... this is before my first coffee;)

Insane Blue Sun Mar 17, 2013 09:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 885040)
Speaking FED, I would use rule 8-6-15 and 8-6-18. While -15 speaks of the on-deck batter, it mentions that if no play is obvious when the on-deck batter (and, as a viable extension, any offensive player not involved in base running) interferes, nobody is out and runners return. And -18 requires a runner who has scored or has been retired to interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Whereas example "B" in youngump's scenarios clearly shows that R1 prevented the defense from playing on B2, example "A" does not.
If you want to take it to Fed you have a retired runner at this point and still interference.

Manny A Sun Mar 17, 2013 09:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Blue (Post 885047)
If you want to take it to Fed you have a retired runner at this point and still interference.
I never said there wasn't interference. But not all interference calls result in out calls on other runners. It's not automatic.

Insane Blue Sun Mar 17, 2013 09:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 885048)
I never said there wasn't interference. But not all interference calls result in out calls on other runners. It's not automatic.
It does when a play is made do to the interference. Section 8 the runner is out. 8-6-15 is blocked ball do to equipment. weak argument as their is no equipment. Penalty a play is being made on a retired runner you have an out on the runner being played on. since this player is legally a retired runner you have 2 violations.

8-6-16-c (Ding Ding Ding) We have a winner!!! to long to type out but second sentence A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. Penalty the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is out and all other runners return to last base touched at time of interference.

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Blue (Post 884912)
Abbandoment is not the issue
Of course it's not. Which is why you were taken to task for quoting the abandonment rule.

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 884929)
R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.
A is most likely nothing (perhaps something if F2 is chasing the scored runner around). B could very well be interference if they had a legitimate play on the runner (which sounds probable). C is definitely nothing.

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 884879)
First, I'll say that I am going to have a heard time calling any sort of interference unless I see something overt.

But, with respect to the player leaving the dugout, it is in fact, illegal. She does not have a legal reason to be outside the dugout once she has crossed home plate and entered the dugout. Her running responsibilities are over and rule permits her to be out of the dugout. Team members are only permitted out of the dugout when the rules allow. No rule allows her to be out of the dugout in this case.

By rule, you have to ask yourself, "What rule permits this team member to be out of the dugout?" If there isn't one, she is required to be in the dugout.
Not completely true. Scored and retired runners are not required to vaporize - they just can't interfere. Further, many scored runners will stay around the plate to coach a potential slide / no slide - this is not illegal (unless, of course, said scored runner interferes with something).

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Blue (Post 885034)
What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.
FWIW, you are right here. No rule or interp, or rationalization at all can support sending the runner back. Either the scored runner interfered - or she didn't. Sending the runner back is wrong in either case.

Manny A Mon Mar 18, 2013 02:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 885173)
FWIW, you are right here. No rule or interp, or rationalization at all can support sending the runner back. Either the scored runner interfered - or she didn't. Sending the runner back is wrong in either case.
Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that what is said for the on-deck batter applies to other players and coaches. But the Penalty when an ODB interferes under 7-5-4 does allow for runners to return to their previous bases if the interference happens when no play is obvious. I thought the same was the case for other offensive teammates.

EsqUmp Mon Mar 18, 2013 07:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 885171)
Not completely true. Scored and retired runners are not required to vaporize - they just can't interfere. Further, many scored runners will stay around the plate to coach a potential slide / no slide - this is not illegal (unless, of course, said scored runner interferes with something).
THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A RETIRED RUNNER GOING INTO THE DUGOUT AND COMING BACK OUT.

You've changed the scenario. What in my statement is inaccurate?

Manny A Tue Mar 19, 2013 07:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 885262)
THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A RETIRED RUNNER GOING INTO THE DUGOUT AND COMING BACK OUT.
Why yell? You can make your point without engaging the Caps Lock button.

Are you suggesting that a retired runner becomes someone else when she enters the dugout? Is there a rule cite for that?

The rules are clear that a retired (or scored) runner cannot enter the dugout, and then come back out to correct base running mistakes. But I've never seen anything that says once she enters the dugout, she can no longer come back out to do other things like direct a teammate to slide at home.

Seriously (and without shouting), is there something that says her status as a retired (or scored) runner changes the moment she steps into DBT?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01pm.
Page 3 of 6 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1