![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Start watching about the 56:00 mark. The first pitch was an intentional ball, and the catcher threw the ball to the third baseman for Ball Two (Rule 10.16). The sequence was repeated on the next pitch to achieve Ball Four. I have no idea about the Effect of 10.16 - why it did not come into play. Because an Intentional Base on Balls requires four pitches to be delivered to the batter, there must be something in the Scoring Rules that treats this scenario as a Hit Batter. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
"In addition, on the first offense, the offending player shall be warned. On subsequent offenses, the offender shall be ejected from the game." I did not see the catcher get ejected. Also... EXCEPTION: Intentionally violating the rule in order to walk the batter without pitching shall not result in a ball being awarded to the batter.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
|
I think the situation is actually very simple. The umpires, who likely have not faced this type situation at the college level, kicked the call. The scorer had to put something in the scorebook, and since it can't count as an intentional walk since 4 pitches were not delivered, found the only thing they could think of to indicate the award of first base without the 4 pitches being delivered. NCAA scoring rules, IIRC, require the count to be listed on the play by play, so you can't have a walk with B-B. I think this was a scorer trying to go on the fly with a situation nobody has even seen. I've never seen this, nor have I ever heard of this happening at any level, let alone the highest level of college softball.
|
|
|||
|
Steve? This was a Super Regional, so you would think ... . But it could be that simple. And if the sequence should not have been allowed, then yes, the scorekeeper has to manufacture something out of thin air.
Last edited by Jake26; Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:51am. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
If this was not an intentional walk - the penalty of a ball would apply - saying the scorekeeper would invent HBP instead of simply logging the 4 balls (2 thrown, 2 penalty) as a walk ... I have no words for that.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can believe that the PU didn't react to this according to the EFFECT; if not questioned by the OC, it could have easily slipped by. And even if U1 or U3 knew it wasn't handled properly, who wants to be the crew member that calls out your PU on a national broadcast? IMO, there was no way in he!! that scorekeeper knew the EFFECT for this situation, and refused to call it a walk; I've been umpiring 40+ years and have never seen it happen. And couldn't honestly tell you I would have jumped out with that answer in that short moment, either. I know of no quirk in the rules nor the NCAA scoring rules that explain why this was recorded as HBP. BUT, let's also remember that NCAA institutions are required to use the NCAA approved program, and it is the one converted from baseball, that doesn't track illegal pitches, just "balks" when a runner is awarded an advance on an illegal pitch. My point is that the scorekeeper may well have wanted to put B-B*-B-B*, but that the software simply couldn't handle it. Personally, I suspect I would have simply recorded B-B-B-B, unless there is some unknown program rule saying to call it HBP; but that certainly doesn't track with the NCAA's never-ending search for absolute statistical accuracy. After all, we are told, that errata may affect that student-athlete's scholarship!!
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
|
Quote:
The scorekeeper is required to keep an accurate account of the game. Putting down a HBP when that never happened is derelict in the scorekeeper's duties. Someone given the responsibility for keeping the official scoring of an NCAA Super-Regional is going to be very knowledgeable of the rules. Likely, he/she would annotate "B*" for the second ball, and then "*-10.16 Violation" somewhere on the scoresheet to clarify this was not an ordinary pitch out of the strike zone.
__________________
"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 |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ASA Slow Pitch/Fast Pitch Rules Differences | IRISHMAFIA | Softball | 8 | Fri Jan 13, 2012 07:27pm |
| Fast pitch - batter "catches" the pitch | Dakota | Softball | 16 | Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:06am |
| Bats: Slow-pitch v. Fast-pitch | Blu_IN | Softball | 3 | Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:12pm |
| Slow Pitch, Fast Pitch, Baseball...they are all the same... | Bandit | Softball | 5 | Mon Jun 14, 2004 07:00pm |