The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 12:24pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
Maybe you want to view this:


This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.
Absolutely - IFF is called out as a specific separate case.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 12:30pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
So, you are saying a DDB is situational in NCAA's rules concerning INT?
I wish they would use that term (DDB) - it would be more clear. However, I'm saying this based on videos from the clinics.

Unfortunately, the rule only implies it, and doesn't state it outright. Here's one place:

12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field
a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference,
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.


The "and was prevented from doing so" certainly implies that we must wait to see if they are actually prevented.

Also under effect:

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine
fly ball, the batter is also out


Again, the wording of "prevents the fielder from catching". It's not as clear as anyone would like - but with the clarifications at clinics, it's is clear what they want here.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Absolutely - IFF is called out as a specific separate case.
No, it isn't. The amount of runners on is not an issue. The case play happened to have IFF in effect, but same effect if R1 was the only runner.

Case plays on arbiter, from the NCAA rules editor, constantly use the phase that I highlighted: "interference is an immediate dead ball." It is even part of the rule:
Quote:
As a general rule, when on-deck batter, batter, batter-runner, base runner or coach interference occurs: (1) the ball becomes dead, (2) the violator is called out,
Quote:
12-19-1 The base runner may not interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
EFFECT—The ball is dead.
Fielders cannot make a play once interference is called: they are "prevented" from catching a fly ball; they are "prevented" from throwing a ball to another fielder; they are "prevented" from catching a ground ball. They are "prevented" from any other action because -- the ball is dead.

Please, please please have your clinicians send me their materials and/or videos. Because they are wrong. All of the clinics that I have attended (which include ones being hosted and presented by the SUP) have never made this distinction.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 03:56pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Think what you wish, BS. I would ask you what the purpose of the rule I quoted might mean if the one you quoted is the only rule we should look at here.

But I don't have the energy right now for a semantic argument when I know what I've seen on about 10 different occasions. Call what you want... I hope your bosses like what you call.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 06:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I wish they would use that term (DDB) - it would be more clear. However, I'm saying this based on videos from the clinics.

Unfortunately, the rule only implies it, and doesn't state it outright. Here's one place:

12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field
a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference,
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.
I obviously do not have all the publications, but I read this as saying there actually has to be a play available to the defender for INT to apply. IOW, the defender had a play, not just running toward a ball with absolutely no possibility of getting anyone out even if the INT was not evident.
__________________
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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:30am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I obviously do not have all the publications, but I read this as saying there actually has to be a play available to the defender for INT to apply. IOW, the defender had a play, not just running toward a ball with absolutely no possibility of getting anyone out even if the INT was not evident.
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".
A little clearer.

I used to play with a SS that dove for anything. I mean anything! 20' away when he hit the ground, but he dove for the ball. He was attempting to make a play, but he had no shot at doing so. If a runner was going from 2B to 3B and this guy dove for a ball up the middle that there was no chance to make a play and flew into that runner, I'm not calling INT.

To me, that is how that rule reads. Granted, it may not be well written, but that is how this hi skuel gratiate reads it.
__________________
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
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 13, 2018, 08:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 637
similar sit this weekend, where F3 runs hard into the 1B coach while chasing a fly ball which just crosses the fence out of play (high fence; no chance of reaching over to make the catch).

If I call INT at the time of collision, I clearly have to reverse my call, no?


(sorry, didn't realize this was a 5-year old thread)

Last edited by jmkupka; Wed Jun 13, 2018 at 09:12am.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:56pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
similar sit this weekend, where F3 runs hard into the 1B coach while chasing a fly ball which just crosses the fence out of play (high fence; no chance of reaching over to make the catch).

If I call INT at the time of collision, I clearly have to reverse my call, no?


(sorry, didn't realize this was a 5-year old thread)
On a foul ball like that, I'm not making any immediate call of interference on the coach. I'm going to wait until I see if the ball was catchable. But I will definitely give the fielder the maximum benefit of the doubt after I see where the ball ended up.
__________________
"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
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 / Blocked Ball / Nothing NCASAUmp Softball 11 Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:27pm
Deflected ball and interference WestMichBlue Softball 10 Tue Oct 18, 2005 06:33pm
Interference or just a Dead Ball 18597 Softball 1 Tue Aug 17, 2004 03:49pm
interference with batted ball nelyak Softball 21 Mon Aug 18, 2003 02:29pm
Interference on Ball 4 PeteBooth Baseball 3 Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:42pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1