New partner
 

PONY State tournament this weekend. Already have team A mad at me (apparently their batter should be allowed to accidentally interfere with a D3k, but whatever)...

Partner's in "C", grounder to F6, fires to F3. I'm in holding position, ball solidly in F3's glove, no pulled foot.
I bust up for the play at 3rd when I hear behind me "she bobbled it!" (1B coach)
With no play at 3rd, I work my way back to plate, when Partner calls me to him. I think "oh no, don't say it..."

Partner: "did you have a bobble on the transfer?"
Me: "Why ask me that? Has nothing to do with this play."
Partner: "Absolutely it does! Did you have it?"
Me: "Listen to me. If you call that, defense will protest the call and they will win. I don't want that on my field."
He didn't budge. Called the runner safe.

Talking to a brick wall, I walked away. Fortunately, defense was as clueless as he, so no protest.

Anybody here ever overturn a call that was not judgement, but rule interp?

I'm confused by your question. This IS a judgment call. You're judging whether or not F3 maintained control of the ball at first base. If you're certain that F3 did control the ball, why didn't you just tell your partner just that?

My point to him was, she had control of the thrown ball, with foot on the bag, before the runner got there. Bobbling a transfer had ZERO to do with the criteria needed for an out.

When you bring your partner in to ask for his input, have a precise question for him. Did she hold the bag? Did you see daylight between the runner and the sweep tag?

His precise question was a non-factor in whether the out was made.

I did tell him I had control at the time of the out (and he agreed), but he also wanted a controlled transfer. Not relevant.

Not a judgement at that point, but a rule interp.

Sorry if I just said the same thing 5 times...

Or is he trying to say the rule is maintaining control throughout the play, not just at the time of the touch/tag? :confused:

You should have simply stuck with "She had control at the time of the out." And if he asked, "did she bobble on the transfer", say, "that's not relevant to this play but I did not see that, I was moving to my possible play at third after the out was secured at first"... or maybe something less wordy.

But as to your actual question, YES, you (if you are UIC, and not simply PU) have the responsibility to fix a known mistaken rule interpretation. If you don't have a designated UIC or Crew Chief (not all areas do) for the game, your rules argument is simply your interp against his ... and while we all know, here, that your interp is right --- on the field how do you know who is right when 2 people simply have 2 differing interpretations of a rule (one is right, one is wrong ... but the PU is not right by definition).

Okay, that is what I ask of the coach who comes to me with a concern over my call. I don't require the same thing from my partner! We're a team out there, and we need to be able to discuss the whole play to get the call right. Making those kinds of demands for "precise questions" with nothing else that you consider superfluous is a short road to losing your partner's desire to work with you, IMHO.

I disagree. You should never go to your partner if you don't have a specific question in mind. "What did you see?" is the worst question ever, and it makes me cringe when my partner asks that.

If coach gets him to come to me, it should be because of something specific - therefore the question to us should be specific as well.

Yes, those make me cringe as well. But I will respond with, "What did the coach want you to get help with?" and not with, "What is your precise question?"

I guess I just took jmkupka's tone wrong (problem with internet discussion boards). I read it as, "Don't come to me unless you have a precise question; othewise, go back to your position." My point was we should be a little more forgiving when we talk to each other about a play, and not treat each other like coaches.

I'm more interested in this part. What happened there?

Rit

Dropped 3rd strike, ball bounced forward, got tangled up in B/R's feet & shot to the side a bit as F2 was reaching for it.
A glancing contact might be ignored, however this did interfere with F2's attempt to retrieve it.

Um ... what?

That would not be interference if it were not intentional.

What rule code? Does Pony have it's own?

Rita

Found the PONY softball rule code. 8-3

Not interference.

Rita

The PONY (8.7.h) rule is like the other association, intent is not necessary.

I didn't want to assume. I knew it wasn't part of any code I do use.

Rita