The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 06, 2014, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Desert....
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
If you are quoting the EA version of POT, that has nothing to do with the catcher's/fielder's positioning. This is an umpire mnemonic: get to a calling Position, watch for Obstruction, watch for the Tag.

But we can talk umpire mechanics in a different thread
.
You can go into them here... might as well....
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 06, 2014, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
Please reread what I've written. At the time of the collision, I have "about to receive" in effect (or the ball and runner arriving at the same time, just like Andy does in the post prior to yours). That is my judgement, and we can different on the judgement here, I'll concede that fits a very narrow window on "grey area".

My statement was any actions prior to the collision to be called obstruction. See, no flaw, and really, you don't have to be flabbergasted.
Fair enough - flabbergast removed. Pending video of the aforementioned alternate angle, I don't see any chance ATR could apply here.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 06, 2014, 05:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by azbigdawg View Post
The play was judged NOT to be obstruction. Since it was not, the thought process changed to Rule 12.13.......

thoughts on that? thoughts on the hole in the rule? (If you think there is one?)
Part of the problem with the OBS is the angle. We really cannot see if the ATR was available. Part of the problem with the EJECTION camp is that we do not see what happened prior to the collision to determine whether the runner had the opportunity to check up or avoid the collision. It is obvious that the catcher moved into the basepath, but that still doesn't mean the runner had no option.

However, no matter how you put it, I still see nothing in which you can rule the runner out.
__________________
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
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 07, 2014, 03:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 372
I think it is EA, but I don't have any older manuals to confirm it.

as I recall, the position refers to the fielders position. but those older manuals were before my time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
If you are quoting the EA version of POT, that has nothing to do with the catcher's/fielder's positioning. This is an umpire mnemonic: get to a calling Position, watch for Obstruction, watch for the Tag.

But we can talk umpire mechanics in a different thread.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 07, 2014, 08:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagpal View Post
you likely know the PU, being an AZ JC game.
PU might be mixing up with HS rules, which requires a safe call and ejected runner if he judges it as malicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azbigdawg View Post
Don't be flabbergasted. From up the line the view of the path of both the catcher and runner is different than here. By "different" I mean "better".
Yeah, I'm pretty sure azbigdawg knows the umpire; it;s been several years, but I'm pretty sure I know him, too.

My $.02. At full speed, I could justify both obstruction and a no-call; it happened that fast to be almost simultaneous. Ball arrived a split second after the runner, but that requires the slow-mo replay viewed several times. And, yes, the catcher shuffled deeper the last instant, apparently playing the hop on the throw. Easy to second guess with Monday morning replay.

But we also see the last three steps of the runner, and she is already raising to drive her arms into the catcher. Ejection is warranted, in my opinion; in that last three steps she was clearly NOT attempting to avoid the collision (which is stated as the intent of the rule in the rule itself), rather, I am convinced she thought she had a free shot.

Unfortunately, D, I don't see NCAA rule support for the out. JMO.

I assume this has been run past SA and MB; what were their comments?
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 07, 2014, 09:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Desert....
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Yeah, I'm pretty sure azbigdawg knows the umpire; it;s been several years, but I'm pretty sure I know him, too.

My $.02. At full speed, I could justify both obstruction and a no-call; it happened that fast to be almost simultaneous. Ball arrived a split second after the runner, but that requires the slow-mo replay viewed several times. And, yes, the catcher shuffled deeper the last instant, apparently playing the hop on the throw. Easy to second guess with Monday morning replay.

But we also see the last three steps of the runner, and she is already raising to drive her arms into the catcher. Ejection is warranted, in my opinion; in that last three steps she was clearly NOT attempting to avoid the collision (which is stated as the intent of the rule in the rule itself), rather, I am convinced she thought she had a free shot.

Unfortunately, D, I don't see NCAA rule support for the out. JMO.

I assume this has been run past SA and MB; what were their comments?

I will see Steve next week and run it past him. MB says possible obstruction, ejection warranted..possible hole in the rule. He chatted about a couple of things to consider in reference to the obs...

I have asked 3 different people who have been or will be in OKC one day... the only consistent yes is the ejection.

2 of them had to revisit the rule about collisions in reference to the out call.

Only ejection in 6-7 is becoming a pain...
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 08, 2014, 01:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
The catcher didnt exactly leave the runner anywhere to go. She was well up the line and drifting further into foul territory. It does look like the runner was attempting to go around but the catcher moved into her path.
I agree, and I'm ok with BR arms coming to protector herself, our brains tell the body to protect our organs.
PU may have saw something we don't see on the video, but with NCAA rule set, I've got catcher about to receive and runner doing what she suppose to do.
I would have no problems explaining a crash, but given consideration what the video doesn't show, it could also be ruled a possible obs. with catcher altering the base runners path prior to her about to receive?

Last edited by roadking; Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:21pm.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 08, 2014, 05:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking View Post
I agree, and I'm ok with BR arms coming to protector herself, our brains tell the body to protect our organs.
PU may have saw something we don't see on the video, but with NCAA rule set, I've got catcher about to receive and runner doing what she suppose to do.
I would have no problems explaining a crash, but given consideration what the video doesn't show, it could also be ruled a possible obs. with catcher altering the base runners path prior to her about to receive?
If the runner had time to raise her arms, she had time to at least attempt to try to check up or avoid. IMO, this runner had no intention of doing anything other than drive through the catcher.

And remember, these are adult college players, not some lower level of youth ball so there should be no excuses of ignorance or lack of physical or mental ability to know exactly what was happening and the ramifications of their action.
__________________
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
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 08, 2014, 05:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by azbigdawg View Post
I will see Steve next week and run it past him. MB says possible obstruction, ejection warranted..possible hole in the rule. He chatted about a couple of things to consider in reference to the obs...

I have asked 3 different people who have been or will be in OKC one day... the only consistent yes is the ejection.

2 of them had to revisit the rule about collisions in reference to the out call.

Only ejection in 6-7 is becoming a pain...
What hole are you seeing?
__________________
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
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 08, 2014, 11:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 372
the "A" hole.

just kidding, I had to go there. it was just too perfectly setup not to crack at that one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
What hole are you seeing?
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 09, 2014, 07:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagpal View Post
the "A" hole.

just kidding, I had to go there. it was just too perfectly setup not to crack at that one.

It was right over the plate. You had to swing.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2014, 05:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Why cant I see the video? Imget a private video message.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whatcha got? #olderthanilook Basketball 9 Tue Dec 03, 2013 06:05pm
Whatcha got? Rooster Basketball 6 Thu Aug 15, 2013 07:58pm
Whatcha got? fiasco Basketball 35 Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:58am
Whatcha think? WhistlesAndStripes Basketball 8 Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:57am
Whatcha Got? ranjo Basketball 33 Sat Dec 04, 2004 09:13am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1