Retired runner proceeds straight to base -- do you have interference? (ASA)

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

[EsqUmp]

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Yes, and as a matter of fact, that was the same verbiage used in Colorado Springs in 2006 at the National Council Meeting when "intent" was removed from the INT rules.

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

That's not logic, that's just a misleading argument. What R1 is "supposed to be doing" is avoiding a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

That could be true. But on OBS, the runner just gets what should have been where on INT, the defense ALWAYS receives an assumed out, sometimes two.

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

No more so than awarding a base to a runner on an IP. One has nothing to do with the other except for being punitive, just like effecting the LBR for a runner stepping off a base or not deciding to return to the base quick enough when there is obviously no play developing.

Then there is the U3K. Why does the offense get another chance to reach the base safely simply after failing to put the ball into play and the catcher doesn't catch the ball? Neither did what they were supposed to do, so why isn't it just a wash?

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

I really like this.....having had 32 hours of Physics (Quantum Physics/Orbital Bodies/Nuclear and some Electrical Engineering courses counted as Physics when I was in college. I hated Ficken Optics and Magnetism......my oldest Daughter ate that shit up...(that is why she is an engineer and I am not)...My brother was also a genius at that stuff. Ugh......all I have to say.......I was always a Chemistry Guy......

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

But, I like this one better.........d;-)

Flitwick would have been awesome.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

Rich....please moderate this post......this is not a whose **** is longest just so you know. But, I thought since you have known me since about 1997, you can add some credibility to what I am fixin to say.

EsqUmp is still beating his dead horse.......Jeez...You have been proven wrong so many times.....why do you even still argue it....? You should go to your other NY expert and have him find that his BB Expert Carl Childress agrees with US. Even though it has no bearing on the SB game.

Arguing for interference when there is none is insane.

Dakota, Steve, Irish, Tom, NCAA, Manny, myself and many other hundreds of other umpires (who I wish I could all name) have butted heads for years arguing about the most trivial of things..........all the way back to the 90's......and we for the pretty much part kept it civil.

You show up in the last two years and proclaim yourself God's gift to umpires. And if we did not adhere to your view of umpiring....we were idiots. Time and time again we show you where you are wrong....and you act like a Teflon Don.....you allow the shit to roll right off of you.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Ooooooh.....you are an NCAA umpire.

Get in line. I can out umpire about 99% of y'all in ASA ball.....and probably most others in NCAA....even with a shitty hip.

PM me for my pedigree.....

Joel

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

Haven't you been embarrassed enough.

[EsqUmp]

Joel,

1: I didn't start the post, so I didn't bring a horse to the race.

2: Everyone has provided an answer. Some have articulated a basis for the argument. Some haven't. The fact that I participated in the discussion doesn't mean I'm beating a dead horse. Moreover, I'm certainly not the one who killed the horse in the first place.

3: Don't go running to someone asking to stifle me. No one needs a 2nd grade tattle tail. All I offered were some philosophy to the conversation and used it as a point of comparison. I don't care whether someone agrees or disagrees with it. I can still respect an opinion even if I don't agree with it.

4: Why don't you try taking what I wrote and actually respond to it? Again, you can agree or (obviously) disagree; but trying to call me out for one post is juvenile and spineless.

5: I have never posted my resume, short or long. I have never once preached games I have worked. I don't even list the organizations I belong to. So don't dare try to tell me that I am turning this into a whose **** is bigger. You started that crap and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[grounder]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

Rich....please moderate this post......this is not a whose **** is longest just so you know. But, I thought since you have known me since about 1997, you can add some credibility to what I am fixin to say.

EsqUmp is still beating his dead horse.......Jeez...You have been proven wrong so many times.....why do you even still argue it....? You should go to your other NY expert and have him find that his BB Expert Carl Childress agrees with US. Even though it has no bearing on the SB game.

Arguing for interference when there is none is insane.

Dakota, Steve, Irish, Tom, NCAA, Manny, myself and many other hundreds of other umpires (who I wish I could all name) have butted heads for years arguing about the most trivial of things..........all the way back to the 90's......and we for the pretty much part kept it civil.

You show up in the last two years and proclaim yourself God's gift to umpires. And if we did not adhere to your view of umpiring....we were idiots. Time and time again we show you where you are wrong....and you act like a Teflon Don.....you allow the shit to roll right off of you.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Ooooooh.....you are an NCAA umpire.

Get in line. I can out umpire about 99% of y'all in ASA ball.....and probably most others in NCAA....even with a shitty hip.

PM me for my pedigree.....

Joel

geez,,talk about a whose **** is bigger...lol..calm down and listen to other opinions once in a while. its healthy for officiating to hear some wisdom that may be outside the box although relavant. you dont have to agree with it but i would hope it would it would give you food for thought. and if no one else cares, im impressed with you being so accomplished, someday i hope to be a 1 percenter, my hip is ok but my shoulder bothers me once in a while..does that count?....lol...by the way, which post by esq ump did you interpret as uncivil?. i find his responses to be quite literate and gramatically civilized..take it easy and keep an open mind

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

or science

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by grounder

geez,,talk about a whose **** is bigger...lol..calm down and listen to other opinions once in a while. its healthy for officiating to hear some wisdom that may be outside the box although relavant. you dont have to agree with it but i would hope it would it would give you food for thought. and if no one else cares, im impressed with you being so accomplished, someday i hope to be a 1 percenter, my hip is ok but my shoulder bothers me once in a while..does that count?....lol...by the way, which post by esq ump did you interpret as uncivil?. i find his responses to be quite literate and gramatically civilized..take it easy and keep an open mind

grounder.......

I was speaking to a specific individual.....not you.

Read his posts and decide who you think is the instigator.

We had a nice argumentative group here before a certain person got here......it then got personal.

I have been arguing with some of these guys for more than 15 years......one guy comes in and it all blows up......who do you blame.

Hope all is well with you.

Joel

[grounder]

thanks joel..i hope things are well with you also...i understand your position and frustration at times with the esq guy. i think his approach is a bit brusque at times but dont you find his slant and take on what has been standard mechanics and rule interpretations , at least. a little interesting? i dont agree with him a good portion of the time but there are times when his ideas just seem to make sense. being on the outside looking in at most discussions on here i think posters like him make for a more thought provoking discussion...just my opinion of course

[Dakota]

Joel, he (and a couple of others) have not been participants on this board for some time.

At least as far as I am concerned.

The "ignore" list is a wonderful thing!

Until someone quotes him, that is... STOP THAT!

[grounder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Joel, he (and a couple of others) have not been participants on this board for some time.

At least as far as I am concerned.

The "ignore" list is a wonderful thing!

Until someone quotes him, that is... STOP THAT!

now thats one of the problems with this site..automatically an outsider is consider an invader..so what does Dakota want to do?..circle the wagons and cozy up to"JOEL'..come on JOEL. ignore this guy!! JOEL, he's not one of us!......cant anyone just keep an open mind without rallying the troops and circling the wagon?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Joel, he (and a couple of others) have not been participants on this board for some time.

At least as far as I am concerned.

The "ignore" list is a wonderful thing!

Until someone quotes him, that is... STOP THAT!

That is about as absurd, juvenile and repressive as it gets.

Do away with someone who you don't like. This is 2013 America, not 1940 Hitler's Germany.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

This is 2013 America, not 1940 Hitler's Germany.

Which means we get to choose whose words we read or listen to.