The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Home Run Hug (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/96363-home-run-hug.html)

Umpteenth Fri Oct 25, 2013 08:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 908773)
...Usually when this idiotic call is improperly made...
You imply that there is a proper way to make this idiotic call. :)

Manny A Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 908485)
I suspect I would say something more like - "Coach, he did not assist her in reaching the base - in my judgment she would have reached it without his help... if anything, he hindered her."
I dunno, Mike. There is no requirement to assess whether or not the runner would have reached a base without the coach's assistance. Any touch of a runner during a live ball should be deemed illegal, even if it did more hindrance than assistance.

shagpal Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:57pm
No one really knows. Even the partners still are unsure now. The announcer announced it was for over celebration, so perhaps unsporting behavior. Dunno, I was not there, and the scoop from partners were that umpires did not get together for the call, and no post-game, they each went straight to their cars afterwards. It was never discussed or brought up amongst them ever again AFAIK or was told.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 908773)
Well, then that the hell did he call the runner out for?

Usually when this idiotic call is improperly made, it is because the umpire doesn't understand that in almost every code: 1) the ball must be live; and 2) contact between a player and coach does not, in and of itself, equal assistance.

Moreover, EVEN in NCAA, it isn't an out the first time anyway. It is a warning. So even if the NCAA umpire applied an NCAA rule in a high school game, he didn't even do that correctly.

I hope his partner stepped in to get the rule right.

MD Longhorn Fri Oct 25, 2013 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 908837)
Any touch of a runner during a live ball should be deemed illegal, even if it did more hindrance than assistance.
No, no, a thousand times no. I had that partner just a week ago that insisted the coach high-fiving a girl that just hit a single and was almost back to the base as the ball was being thrown back to the pitcher should be called out. NO NO NO NO NO.

nopachunts Fri Oct 25, 2013 03:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 908870)
No, no, a thousand times no. I had that partner just a week ago that insisted the coach high-fiving a girl that just hit a single and was almost back to the base as the ball was being thrown back to the pitcher should be called out. NO NO NO NO NO.
I think I have worked with that guy before. :D

Manny A Fri Oct 25, 2013 03:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 908870)
No, no, a thousand times no. I had that partner just a week ago that insisted the coach high-fiving a girl that just hit a single and was almost back to the base as the ball was being thrown back to the pitcher should be called out. NO NO NO NO NO.
Okay, okay, perhaps I generalized too much. I shouldn't have said ANY touch of a runner, period.

I meant any touch of a runner that is designed to help her run the bases. That includes pushes, pulls, grabs, trips, pats on the back (to signal when to take off on a tag-up following a caught fly ball), etc. Whether or not the runner would have made a base minus that touch is immaterial.

MD Longhorn Fri Oct 25, 2013 04:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 908891)
Okay, okay, perhaps I generalized too much. I shouldn't have said ANY touch of a runner, period.

I meant any touch of a runner that is designed to help her run the bases. That includes pushes, pulls, grabs, trips, pats on the back (to signal when to take off on a tag-up following a caught fly ball), etc. Whether or not the runner would have made a base minus that touch is immaterial.
I agree with that... but I don't think the hug was "designed to help her".

AtlUmpSteve Fri Oct 25, 2013 04:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 908891)
Whether or not the runner would have made a base minus that touch is immaterial.
Generally agreed until this statement. This one too general for me.

How do you judge if she was "assisted" if you won't consider that the touch may or may not have been a factor in her baserunning?

Manny A Sat Oct 26, 2013 06:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 908898)
Generally agreed until this statement. This one too general for me.

How do you judge if she was "assisted" if you won't consider that the touch may or may not have been a factor in her baserunning?
Steve, I was talking of "that touch" that helps the runner, per my previous sentence. I honestly cannot envision a scenario where a coach touches a runner to help her, and we still have to judge if the runner would have achieved the base without that touch. The rule isn't like the obstruction rule where we can essentially ignore the infraction if it ends up having zero impact on the play. Any touch to help the runner should be called assistance.

Manny A Sat Oct 26, 2013 06:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by md longhorn (Post 908896)
i agree with that... But i don't think the hug was "designed to help her".
+1

IRISHMAFIA Sat Oct 26, 2013 09:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 908896)
I agree with that... but I don't think the hug was "designed to help her".
On this statement alone: An assist need not be intentional, nor "designed" to aid a runner. Something as simple as a coach pushing a player off or away from him/her can be an assist even though some may consider it just a matter of protecting oneself or untangling from each other.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1