The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
No where, that I can find, in the NCAA softball rules book does it say the bat must be stationary for it to be considered the ball hitting the bat.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller1276 View Post
No where, that I can find, in the NCAA softball rules book does it say the bat must be stationary for it to be considered the ball hitting the bat.
Can you find anywhere that it is not considered as the ball hitting the bat if it was not stationary?
__________________
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
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Can you find anywhere that it is not considered as the ball hitting the bat if it was not stationary?
The definition of the words hit tends to imply that the thing that moved into the other thing hit it. If a runner is running to first and someone steps in front of her, we say she hit them. And if someone sideswipes her we say they hit her. If they are moving toward each other, we say they hit each other. If the first baseman is running back toward first and the BR is running faster we don't say the first baseman hit the BR.
So you should understand why others are saying that the natural reading of the rule is that. I'm fine with being told that by interpretation we don't rule on it that way, but I'm not okay with the suggestion that the book is ambiguous on this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
Again if the bat is moving away from the ball, which is what happened in this situation, and the ball rolls into it how can it be judged as the bat hitting the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:15am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller1276 View Post
Again if the bat is moving away from the ball, which is what happened in this situation, and the ball rolls into it how can it be judged as the bat hitting the ball.
According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.
__________________
"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
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.
No, just confirmed what Andy has stated earlier that this is how we were trained.

No one is disagreeing that the "bat to ball" argument should not be the case when the bat is moving away, but that isn't how it was interpreted for us over the years.

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.
__________________
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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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 !
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 09, 2013, 03:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago area, Illinois
Posts: 71
Send a message via ICQ to falsecut Send a message via AIM to falsecut Send a message via Yahoo to falsecut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.
Yeah, that's nice, I should trust Mike and Steve. Which screen names are they? Since people don't always sign their names on their posts, this isn't really clear.
__________________
Craig
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 09, 2013, 03:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by falsecut View Post
Yeah, that's nice, I should trust Mike and Steve. Which screen names are they? Since people don't always sign their names on their posts, this isn't really clear.
Irish and Atl
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
Texas - ASU game 3 MD Longhorn Baseball 181 Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:50pm
Texas v. Nebraska end of game john_faz Football 40 Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:14am
Did anyone see the end of the A&M vs Texas game tonight. mightyvol Basketball 50 Fri Mar 02, 2007 04:55pm
Texas Game SamFanboy Basketball 12 Mon Mar 29, 2004 09:49am
MSU vs. Texas game Zebra1 Basketball 4 Mon Mar 31, 2003 03:20pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1