LSU/Texas AM game

[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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

any ball hitting any part of the plate, EVEN IN FP, the ball is dead.

I don't think it is dead in NFHS FP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I don't think it is dead in NFHS FP.

I apologize, that was too much a generalization. The ball is dead in SP, just cannot be a strike in FP