LSU/Texas AM game

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by miller1276

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[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.

[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 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

[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 !

[falsecut]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by falsecut

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