The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:35pm
Call it as I see it.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
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.
__________________
"I couldn't see well enough to play when I was a boy, so they gave me a special job - they made me an umpire." - President of the United States Harry S. Truman
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 19, 2013, 06:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
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.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Gulf Coast of TX to Destin Fl
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.
But, I like this one better.........d;-)

Flitwick would have been awesome.
__________________
Never argue with idiots...they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Last edited by Gulf Coast Blue; Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:29pm.
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Gulf Coast of TX to Destin Fl
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
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
__________________
Never argue with idiots...they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Gulf Coast of TX to Destin Fl
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Blue View Post
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.
__________________
Never argue with idiots...they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
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.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue View Post
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

Last edited by grounder; Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 10:00pm.
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 21, 2013, 07:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
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
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 21, 2013, 04:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Gulf Coast of TX to Destin Fl
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by grounder View Post
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
__________________
Never argue with idiots...they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 21, 2013, 04:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
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

Last edited by grounder; Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:34pm.
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 23, 2013, 11:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
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!
__________________
Tom
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 23, 2013, 06:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
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?
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 23, 2013, 06:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
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.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:33pm
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 EsqUmp View Post
This is 2013 America, not 1940 Hitler's Germany.
Which means we get to choose whose words we read or listen to.
__________________
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.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Interference by retired runner? Sco53 Baseball 4 Tue Apr 10, 2012 03:54pm
Batter Runner proceeds to second with R1 on first. Robert E. Harrison Baseball 44 Tue Mar 20, 2012 01:47am
Interference by retired runner charliej47 Baseball 16 Mon Jun 22, 2009 09:00am
Visual Interference on Base Runner whiskers_ump Softball 9 Fri Jun 17, 2005 03:05pm
interference by retired runner shipwreck Softball 15 Thu Sep 18, 2003 07:00am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1