LSU/Texas AM game

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.

I get that you're just pokin' me here... but I'd clarify to say that it's not true because Mike or Steve say it is, but rather that Mike or Steve say it is because it's true.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I get that you're just pokin' me here... but I'd clarify to say that it's not true because Mike or Steve say it is, but rather that Mike or Steve say it is because it's true.

Well said !

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And the reason for that may simply be the difficulty in the umpiring making that quick a decision on two moving items. And remember, the umpire doesn't have instant replay or necessarily all the proper angles necessary to get it correct on a consistent basis.

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter? How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right? I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator. I can, however, appreciate the huge effort it takes to achieve consistency.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter? How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right? I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator. I can, however, appreciate the huge effort it takes to achieve consistency.

Not replying to the hyperbole...

But if consistency is what you're after (and I would agree), then the current interpretation is the only way to achieve it. You and I might not agree with it, but if we go with what others are saying (or what we, ourselves, might say had there been no direction on this at all)... then you have all sorts of in-between situations where both ball and bat are moving that would receive differing rulings by different umpires.

The case that started this - bat moving directly away from ball, ball catching up with and contacting bat - might be straight-forward and achieve near unanimous agreement amongst umpires... but we're dealing with 2 objects possibly moving in different directions and different speeds.

What about a bat moving diagonally away from the ball, but the ball catches up to it.
What about a bat moving perpendicular to the motion of the ball that comes in contact with a moving ball ... how would you judge speed of the bat and ball here, how would you determine if the bat hit the ball or the ball hit the bat - both hit each other.
What about a bat moving very slowly diagonally toward the ball, but the ball moving much faster when they contact each other... bat hit ball? ball hit bat.

What your suggesting would achieve NO consistency. It's not about dumbing down - it's about the fact that we would all have different opinions on identical plays ... which we SHOULD NOT HAVE.

What we're told on this play achieves PERFECT consistency - if the bat is moving - enforce the bat hitting the ball part of the rules. If the bat is not moving - enforce the ball hitting the bat part of the rules. Simple - and consistent across all umpires.

[IRISHMAFIA]

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that many, if not most, rule sets include a section which notes that if the player discards the bat in a manner which prevents the defense from making a play.

Doesn't mention movement, direction or even whether the effect would be of the ball, defender or both, just that it can be INT.

I don't consider it dummying down a rule, just locking down a specific point to which all can relate.

[topper]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Simple - and consistent across all umpires.

I can't argue with this statement. Hyperbole didn't require a response.

I don't necessarily have an issue with this particular interpretation, only the reasoning given for coming up with it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter?

Or in the case of the NCAA and NFHS an automatic strike for no movement of the bat.

How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right?

Or just ruling INT anytime a retired runner is hit with a throw toward a base in an attempt to play on another runner even if there is no chance of getting an out.

Let's see, did the ball hit the retired runner or did the retired runner hit the ball? Hmmmm....

I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Yeah, I can see how we wouldn't want the umpire to have to determine if the batter actually tried to contact the ball with the bat or if the runner actually did commit an act of interference.

[topper]

Mike - I think you took my criticism to be directed towards ASA. Not so this time. Things have been dumbed down in college in the last 3-4 years IMO. NFHS as a national presence for training umpires seems non-existent. I agree with your points BTW.

[miller1276]

Ok. Here is my question to NCAA rules editor:

If the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball, which is moving faster, rolls into it. Should it be ruled the ball hitting the bat or the bat hitting the ball?


Here is her response:

As you wrote, the ball rolled into the bat. You have answered your own question

Dee Abrahamson
NCAA Softball Secretary Rules Editor
[email protected]


So the ruling is if the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball rolls into it, it remains live.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Mike - I think you took my criticism to be directed towards ASA. Not so this time. Things have been dumbed down in college in the last 3-4 years IMO. NFHS as a national presence for training umpires seems non-existent. I agree with your points BTW.

Not really. I think the entire game has been dummied down by everyone at every level. And that is all I was pointing out. Those two issues just happened to be conveniently fresh in my mind.

[rant]
As I had pointed out recently on another site, instead of people electing to play a game or sport, they are now electing to join a group and have the game change to accommodate them. Much like the city folk who move to a rural area to get away from the rat race, but expect the 300 year old farming industry to adjust their ways of doing things because they do not care for the environment into which elected to move.

Softball has gone the same route. The FP has turned into a business of showcasing. The adult game has died in many, if not most parts of the country. The SP game has supplanted the FP game for adults, simply because it is not as demanding or time consuming. And the competition level has gone down, down, down as being the best at the lowest possible level has supplanted any pride or desire to change competition and raise the level of your game.

When I was growing up, you played ball to compete, to grow, to see who can be best. In today's world, people play for different reasons, but getting that championship trophy seems to have become a residual effect of the games being played today. Unfortunately, in an effort to reach those goals seem easier, the people promoting their specific game have manipulated many of the rules to the point that, IMO, the game is not the same. Same with the equipment. The "I should be able to use the new technology that creates the best equipment" argument would almost be acceptable if that technology affected 100% of the game, not just the offense's portion.

And while you don't particularly care for some of the reasons, they are what they are and there isn't much that umpires can do about it.

Call the rules as presented and you are an over-officious jerk according to the coaches and bystanders. Let certain things slide and you are a homer or a GAGA. If those were my only two choices, I would go with the OOJ because as umpires, we are being paid to officiate the game in accordance to the rules THE TEAMS have agreed to play by. Not the umpires, the teams. Umpires don't make the rules and are often ignored when there is an effort to offer input. We can try to explain them, massage them to a point of consistent application or just sit back and say, "screw you, this is what you asked for". Well, the massaging and explanation is the officiating corps' most effective way to try and keep the game from getting out of hand and still being able to find people willing to take part as officials.

[/rant]

Guess my point is that the mentality and reasoning we are offered is a direct effect of the game changing and our ability to explain to the umpire why we have to adjust with it.

Again, JMO

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by miller1276

Ok. Here is my question to NCAA rules editor:

If the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball, which is moving faster, rolls into it. Should it be ruled the ball hitting the bat or the bat hitting the ball?


Here is her response:

As you wrote, the ball rolled into the bat. You have answered your own question

Dee Abrahamson
NCAA Softball Secretary Rules Editor
[email protected]


So the ruling is if the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball rolls into it, it remains live.

But.....Mike or Steve didn't say it??

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

But.....Mike or Steve didn't say it??

Actually, Mike did say it in post #10

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

But.....Mike or Steve didn't say it??

Don't ask an NCAA rules editor for an ASA interpretation ... or vice versa!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

But.....Mike or Steve didn't say it??

Steve hasn't responded, because Steve, like Mike, agrees with Dee. But that hasn't been how ASA has taught it as the schools.

I am reminded of a conversation ingrained in my memory forever, circa 1998, or so; I sat with the late Merle Butler, ASA Director of Umpires and his Deputy Director, Henry Pollard, enjoying a cold adult beverage after assisting with an ASA National School, and asked them how could they justify the slowpitch rule that a ball that touched any part of the plate had to be a ball.

I reminded them of the earlier years, when the legal arc was different heights, and even unlimited for a while; and that they teach the strike zone as a column of smoke, and if any part of the ball touched any part of the smoke, that was a strike. Well, it was on three sides with this rule (left, right, and back), but NOT if it hit the front edge and then touched the plate.

The two looked at each other and grinned, and (as was often the case), Henry spoke for both of them. He said they were happy I asked that question, because it meant I really did understand how to call the arc in slowpitch; and that if I asked good questions like that, etc., etc. BUT, they felt they had to put that rule in the book because the vast majority of umpires, and an even higher percentage of players and coaches, didn't really grasp the column of smoke and arc relationship, and there was absolutely no consistency in how balls and strikes were called. Not just in local league play, but at ASA Nationals there were too many inconsistencies.

They could give camps, clinics, and schools, but realized they couldn't affect the absolute inconsistency. And the one symbol of inconsistency was an inability to make people understand that a pitch with a reasonable arc could be at the knees at the front of the plate and still hit the back of the plate and be a strike, while other pitches that hit the plate were balls. For the good of the game, they dealt with the one thing they could; any ball (even a strike!!) that hit the plate would be a ball by rule.

Ironic that the next "dummy-down" effort to address the inability to understand how to call the arc, mat ball, does the opposite, and balls that hit the plate in that version are strikes!!

To my point, I guess; this is another interpretation that I am certain was the result of attempting to minimize inconsistency. To an umpire smart enough to realize and argue the point, of course it isn't what the rule says. As Dee says, you answered your own question.

But it is what was taught to attempt to secure consistency from the masses. I would be interested to see how KR would rule if the question was newly posed to ASA, as he has often changed the "old" rulings.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I reminded them of the earlier years, when the legal arc was different heights, and even unlimited for a while; and that they teach the strike zone as a column of smoke, and if any part of the ball touched any part of the smoke, that was a strike. Well, it was on three sides with this rule (left, right, and back), but NOT if it hit the front edge and then touched the plate.

They could give camps, clinics, and schools, but realized they couldn't affect the absolute inconsistency. And the one symbol of inconsistency was an inability to make people understand that a pitch with a reasonable arc could be at the knees at the front of the plate and still hit the back of the plate and be a strike, while other pitches that hit the plate were balls. For the good of the game, they dealt with the one thing they could; any ball (even a strike!!) that hit the plate would be a ball by rule.

While we are walking down memory lane with Merle & Henry, lets continue in the PLATE and the edging. Steve's assessment above is the same here. Standard response to a question concerning the beveled edges of the plate were like the hands to the bat issue: If you pick up the plate, does the beveled edge come with it?

The issue with the plate was confounded by the fact that while all home plates had a given dimension, there were quite a few different designs and models. They come with no beveled edges, separate footing with the edges into which the slab of white rubbers fits, solid white rubber plates with beveled edges outside the dimensions and some where the beveled edges were included in the dimensions, plates with a sharp angled edge and plates with soft angled edge. Some of the edges were only 1/2" outside of the plate, some were more than an inch outside of that footprint. Even saw plates made of wood (tournament in RI) with no edging.

Then you have plates plated in the ground, attached to a wood/concrete box under the surface, hammered into the ground or just laid on top of the dirt. Some where the edges are covered, some where they are not.

IOW, the plate itself lacked consistency and with most of the angles on the edges, if the umpire could tell the whether the ball hit the black or white part or the top of the plate or beveled side, s/he shouldn't be umpiring, but working for NASA, calibrating the Hubble Telescope.

And now, with stealing in slow pitch, some of these pitches shoot in every which direction and the catcher wouldn't have a prayer of holding the runners.

So, for a matter of consistency and giving catchers a chance, any ball hitting any part of the plate, EVEN IN FP, the ball is dead. The weird part is that all those who complained about that 20 years ago are now cheering it because, as Steve noted, with the mat, it is a strike. I know of pitchers which practice their effort to hit the front edge of the plate for a strike