Game Management play - batter goes on ball 3

[MD Longhorn]

Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA)

Umpires should not use the term game control as a tool for an umpire to be involved every situation occurring on the ball field. Game control should seldom, if never, be noticed: Example, if we have a batter-runner who starts to run to 1B thinking ball four has been awarded; the umpire should call “time” and bring the batter back to the plate. The same holds true with runners on 1B and 2B and the batter takes off for 1B thinking it is ball four causing runners to advance. To eliminate confusion for both the offense and the defense, the umpire should call “time.” An umpire with good game control who gives a loud “time” can prevent the chaos before it gets a chance to start.

Didn't we discuss this here, and eventually get someone from above to state this is not a true case play and is actually incorrect?

[jmkupka]

Hope so, because there's nothing in this situation that would make me call time.
I'd be watching for any play, and giving the count (3 balls, n strikes), loud enough for the batter to get the message.
Any "chaos" would probably come from DC if I denied his F2 the opportunity to make an out at 3rd. Or 2nd. Or wherever.

[xtremeump]

Where did you get the quote ? The Internet ;-) ASA Clone Umpires

[EsqUmp]

Anyone click on the link and notice the catcher committing obstruction?

[RKBUmp]

This pic? From that picture how could you definitevely say it is obstruction? There is no way of knowing where the plate is or each player is in relation to it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA)

Didn't we discuss this here, and eventually get someone from above to state this is not a true case play and is actually incorrect?

I'll disagree with this on a few points.

Too many umpires read something like this and take if as authority to just call time when s/he sees something like this occur. The umpire already has the authority and tools to put the batter back in the box and penalize if the player does not comply.

Problem is, what happens when this occurs and R2 is on their way to 3B when the umpire kills the play? If I'm the OC, that umpire is going to get an earful.

What happens when a coach gives you the heads up that they are going to try a trick play? I've occasionally heard umpires use "trickery" as a reason to nullify a play. There are no rules, nor should their be, to prevent a team from taking advantage of the other's inattention or laziness. Of course, I'm not referring to a fake tag or anything which brings safety into question.

I can understand calling time when a batter mistakenly heads toward 1B as a matter of expedience, but not after scanning the field and determining there is no other play unfolding at the time. My concern is that I don't think most umpires would take the time to check before arbitrarily suspending play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

This pic? From that picture how could you definitevely say it is obstruction? There is no way of knowing where the plate is or each player is in relation to it.

Agree. A still photo isn't enough to determine if this was obstruction....yet.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

This pic? From that picture how could you definitevely say it is obstruction? There is no way of knowing where the plate is or each player is in relation to it.

I don't like judging based on still photos but it is hard for me to fathom that not being obstruction.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't like judging based on still photos but it is hard for me to fathom that not being obstruction.

You cant see the plate, the baseline or where either of the players are in relationship to it. For all we know from that picture the catcher could be 2' in front of the plate toward the pitcher, and if that is the case there is no way its obstruction. I would bet the catcher is most likely standing on top of the plate, but from that picture there is absolutely no way of knowing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't like judging based on still photos but it is hard for me to fathom that not being obstruction.

Agreed ... if everyone is where we think they are in relation to the plate ... and the runner didn't already take a wide turn around 3rd.

But still photos can nearly NEVER truly be enough to rule OBS.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

You cant see the plate, the baseline or where either of the players are in relationship to it. For all we know from that picture the catcher could be 2' in front of the plate toward the pitcher, and if that is the case there is no way its obstruction. I would bet the catcher is most likely standing on top of the plate, but from that picture there is absolutely no way of knowing.

Besides not knowing where the plate is, this photo was taken with a telephoto lens. Telephoto lenses compress distances. It is entirely possible that F2 is legally in front of the plate or out of the runner's path and the runner would pass behind her.

[shagpal]

DAYUM! no fans or spectators either. Totally weird pic.

He should be on 3rd base line extended anyways, LOL! He gonna get blocked.

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

You cant see the plate, the baseline or where either of the players are in relationship to it. For all we know from that picture the catcher could be 2' in front of the plate toward the pitcher, and if that is the case there is no way its obstruction. I would bet the catcher is most likely standing on top of the plate, but from that picture there is absolutely no way of knowing.

[shagpal]

Bro, if that photo is compressed for distance, that guy is about 15-20ft from the play.

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Besides not knowing where the plate is, this photo was taken with a telephoto lens. Telephoto lenses compress distances. It is entirely possible that F2 is legally in front of the plate or out of the runner's path and the runner would pass behind her.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Bro, if that photo is compressed for distance, that guy is about 15-20ft from the play.

The apparent lens compression is from the lens to the subject, not from side to side.

In otherwords it makes things appear closer front to back.
If you are photographing someone standing 20' from the comera and someone behind them standing 25' from the camera, the person in the back would seem to be maybe 22' feet from the camera.

But if you have the second person standing 20' from the camera, but 5' to the side, The telephoto wouldn't have the same effect..

That's an oversimplification, but it's true.

[shagpal]

So what you are saying is we really have no idea who is standing where in relation to each other.

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

The apparent lens compression is from the lens to the subject, not from side to side.

In otherwords it makes things appear closer front to back.
If you are photographing someone standing 20' from the comera and someone behind them standing 25' from the camera, the person in the back would seem to be maybe 22' feet from the camera.

But if you have the second person standing 20' from the camera, but 5' to the side, The telephoto wouldn't have the same effect..

That's an oversimplification, but it's true.