The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 23, 2014, 05:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Not really a problem, given the bolded red. Yes, the ASA definition makes it simpler, but the definition does not justify the wrong opinion described in the OP.
But it is not wrong. Based upon NFHS rule and the fact the OP clearly stated the ball would be caught be an outfielder, IF is not the proper call.

Hey, it's their wording, not mine.

Quote:
Q: Does the ASA definition exclude the "battery"?
I know you have an ASA book Actually, when they defined Infielders it required an adjustment to the IF rule to include pitchers and catchers.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 23, 2014, 06:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
I have often wondered why we expect an educational institution's publication to be clear and grammatically correct.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 23, 2014, 08:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
2-30 says right in the rule, "The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch."
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
But it is not wrong. Based upon NFHS rule and the fact the OP clearly stated the ball would be caught be an outfielder, IF is not the proper call.
No, the rule says that to be an IF, it must have been catchable by an infielder, not that it has to be actually caught by an infielder. The comment then backs this up.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
No, the rule says that to be an IF, it must have been catchable by an infielder, not that it has to be actually caught by an infielder. The comment then backs this up.
But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 01:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.
It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:36pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJ1960 View Post
I had an argument with another umpire at a clinic this am (not an instructor ) who is adamant that you cannot call an Infield Fly if the person who will make the catch is an outfielder.
At a clinic?? SOOOoooo, what did the instructor(s) say when you brought it up to him/her/them??
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:06pm
wife loves the goatee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Beach
Posts: 244
My "opponent" took it to the top and got shot down.... said he plans to call Charlottesville (State Office / Interpreter) and talk to them.....
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJ1960 View Post
My "opponent" took it to the top and got shot down.... said he plans to call Charlottesville (State Office / Interpreter) and talk to them.....
Its already been covered in question 62 of the fed test.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
Its already been covered in question 62 of the fed test.
It's also covered, specifically, in the comment after the rule... but apparently neither are good enough for that guy.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.
What is a batter ball?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.
I think I see what Mike is saying. The OP says "will be caught" not "is caught". I don't know if the OP meant it the way Mike seems to be reading it, but consider this situation...

The infield is in an extreme right shift, with F6 playing shallow center-right and F5 is playing in the nominal SS position, but shifted more toward 2B. F7 comes in to cover third, but still plays a bit deep. (You don't see defensive shifts much in fastpitch due to the small infield, but...) There is a pop up near 3B, F7 is the player who can catch the ball with ordinary effort, since F5 is in her shifted position, and F7 does make the catch. Taking the Fed rule literally, is this an Infield Fly?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 61
2 things. 1, I think some people argue just to hear their head rattle. 2, SS is positioned on the warning track. Deep fly ball and he catches it. What is your call?
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP45 View Post
... I think some people argue just to hear their head rattle...
Is that introspection on your part?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 25, 2014, 12:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.
I completely agree, but the OP doesn't state that. I'm taking the OP as fact and not reading anything into it. The OP has already determined the all to be caught by an outfielder, so lacking any additional information, I HAVE to assume the ball is in the outfield because the OP stated it as such, nor are there any indications that an infielder had the opportunity to catch the ball with normal/ordinary effort.

I have never disagreed that an outfielder "could" be the recipient of a batted ball ruled as an infield fly. After all, I was one of the first and few who defended the IF call in the NL series when the SS was under the all halfway to the fence. But at the time, that was a decision to be made.

In this case, the OP left little to the imagination to anyone who wasn't looking for a way around the argument.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1