The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 27, 2003, 10:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
As of two years ago, NFHS provided an interpretation on the 3' lane violation that would rule a walked BR out if they were contacted with a thrown ball to 1B while not within the running lane.
Fortunately, later clarified that it has to be a legitimate throw to the base, just like any batter becoming a batter-runner, not deliberate throwing at the runner.
IMHO, a ludicrous interpretation whether intentional or not.

__________________
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
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 27, 2003, 11:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
This first thing I would do is what Mike suggested. After the first occurance, call time and have a quiet one-on-one conversation with the coach informing him that it will stop, and what rules he is violating.

On the second occurance, the coach is heading toward the parking lot. And, I may even enforce verbal interferance and call the runner closest to home out.
Tom,

Where do you get verbal interference? I don't believe there is any rule to support that. USC under 10.9.A is a possibility.

However, just how much help do you think the batter is going to get having the pitch screamed out with less than a second to react? The screaming alone would most likely be just as distracting to the batter as it is to the pitcher.

It may be bush or cheap, but that doesn't make it illegal. The one thing it is for sure is STUPID!
Verbal interference is a stretch, and I just tossed that in. It would be based on the definition of interference (act ... that confuses ...) plus the POE which adds the "verbal distraction" part plus ruling that the play being interfered with is the pitch.

OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it!

USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned.

6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.

Caveat: this is all assuming younger JO ball. 18U & Adults may be a different standard.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 27, 2003, 11:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[
Where do you get verbal interference? I don't believe there is any rule to support that. USC under 10.9.A is a possibility.

However, just how much help do you think the batter is going to get having the pitch screamed out with less than a second to react? The screaming alone would most likely be just as distracting to the batter as it is to the pitcher.

It may be bush or cheap, but that doesn't make it illegal. The one thing it is for sure is STUPID!
Verbal interference is a stretch, and I just tossed that in. It would be based on the definition of interference (act ... that confuses ...) plus the POE which adds the "verbal distraction" part plus ruling that the play being interfered with is the pitch.
Nope, in ASA and I assume others, the pitch is not a play.
Quote:
OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it!

USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned.

6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.
Yep, I can buy into this more than anything else, BUT I would have to see it actually affecting the pitcher's delivery. That you specifically notes that the act be taken in an effort to cause an illegal pitch.

Of course, after I talk to the offensive coach, I may have to go over and explain to the pitcher's coach that there is nothing I can do if his actions are not trying to cause in illegal pitch.
Quote:

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.
[/b][/quote]

Nice try, not even close. Players hollering SWING are talking TO the opponent, not their own team. This is covered by the last sentence in ASA's 10.9.A

__________________
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 Wed Aug 27, 2003, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Nope, in ASA and I assume others, the pitch is not a play.
Yeah, I know. But it should be!
Quote:
...the act be taken in an effort to cause an illegal pitch.

Of course, after I talk to the offensive coach, I may have to go over and explain to the pitcher's coach that there is nothing I can do if his actions are not trying to cause in illegal pitch.
That's why pure USC is the better angle, I suppose. Although, especially at younger ages, it is not much of a stretch to see this kind of crazy-coach act causing a pitcher to react to the screaming maniac just off her port bow.
Quote:
Nice try, not even close. Players hollering SWING are talking TO the opponent, not their own team. This is covered by the last sentence in ASA's 10.9.A
I probably shouldn't have brought up SWING, since you are right, it is different.

Trying to put this kind of situation down in writing is dicey since it is a "know it when you see it" thing, not easily described. No one would consider F5 / F3 charging to the batter yelling BUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNT to be any kind of violation, nor would a coach yelling hitting instructions to the batter be anything unusual.

Yet, the situation that I visualize in what was described here is more than the coach just giving instructions. It is with intent to disrupt the pitch. That is what would make it illegal and USC.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 27, 2003, 04:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota


Trying to put this kind of situation down in writing is dicey since it is a "know it when you see it" thing, not easily described. No one would consider F5 / F3 charging to the batter yelling BUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNT to be any kind of violation, nor would a coach yelling hitting instructions to the batter be anything unusual.

Yet, the situation that I visualize in what was described here is more than the coach just giving instructions. It is with intent to disrupt the pitch. That is what would make it illegal and USC.
Yep, we are both in agreement there.

Personally, though in the minority, I think 6.5.B applies to players running up screaming "bunt". I really don't like that. Just as much as I hate catchers who call out "lefty" or "left foot" when a left-handed batter enters the box.

What? Do they think their fellow players are blind to too dumb to notice? Truly, stupid is as stupid does!
__________________
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
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 28, 2003, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
see newer thread: "ASA - running lane violation with a walk "

[Edited by CecilOne on Sep 2nd, 2003 at 11:00 AM]
__________________
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
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 28, 2003, 09:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,474
Thumbs down Agree with poor interp.

Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
IMHO, a ludicrous interpretation whether intentional or not.
Does that mean that when a batter is "walked" and the catcher throws to 1st, as a precaution or whatever,
Precaution for what? There is none. The only plausible reason that a catcher would throw to 1st is if the runner had rounded the base (is now beyond the 3 foot lane) and is now trying to draw a throw/play. The batter runner is not in jeopardy of being thrown out between home and 1st... I agree with those that have said it is a very poor interpretation to allow a runner that is not in jeopardy to be called out because the catcher wants to hit them in the back with a thrown ball... because they are not in the 3 foot lane.

There is no reason for the catcher to make that throw. I would be willing to toss the catcher if I felt his hitting the BR was intentional.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 28, 2003, 10:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
IMHO, a ludicrous interpretation whether intentional or not.
Does that mean that when a batter is "walked" and the catcher throws to 1st, as a precaution or whatever, the BR should be allowed to be in the way or in an unpredictable path with no penalty? Visualize the BR running (as opposed to strolling, standing still removing equipment, etc.) to continue to 2nd or bluff it?
The running lane is there to keep the runner from interfering with a defender taking a throw at 1B to make a play.

There is no play available as the BR is permitted to advance to 1B without liability to be put out. Preemptive moves by the defense should be made at their own expense and liability.

__________________
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 Thu Aug 28, 2003, 10:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
I made this very argument with a Fed rules committee member a few years ago. He felt that Fed had the interp that they wanted. Apparently they do, since there hasn't been a change (correction) made.

Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 11:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Re: Agree with poor interp.

Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Precaution for what? There is none. The only plausible reason that a catcher would throw to 1st is if the runner had rounded the base (is now beyond the 3 foot lane) and is now trying to draw a throw/play. The batter runner is not in jeopardy of being thrown out between home and 1st... I agree with those that have said it is a very poor interpretation to allow a runner that is not in jeopardy to be called out because the catcher wants to hit them in the back with a thrown ball... because they are not in the 3 foot lane.

There is no reason for the catcher to make that throw.
The catcher might make the throw to prevent the runner advancing or bluffing to 2nd, or because F3 is breaking in a new mitt, or to fake out another runner, or because the catcher thought it was strike three. It doesn't matter whether it is strategic or makes sense, only what the rules say. The literal wording of the rule has no exception for becoming a BR by a walk, so how could the application be any different? We are not talking about "the catcher wants to hit them in the back". We are talking about the catcher wants the fielder at 1st to have the ball. Don't forget the second part of the "interpretation" disallowed intentionally "pegging" the BR.

Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I would be willing to toss the catcher if I felt his hitting the BR was intentional.
Willing to and would!
__________________
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
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 12:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
Here is a situation that could happen with the walk and the throwing lane.

No one on base and B1 at bat with a 3-2 count. Pitch is thrown in the dirt and B1 checks his swing as the ball gets away from the catcher. Plate umpire calls ball. B1 takes off hard to first. The catcher, believing that the batter went around, gathers the ball and throws down to first to get the out on the dropped third strike. The runner, outside the three foot lane, interfers with 1B taking the throw and ball goes out into right field and runner takes second.

Now, if I were a coach I would argue for the interference on this play. If the catcher waits for an appeal on the checked swing, he/she may not be able to throw down in time to get the out on the dropped third strike. Because the runner interfered with 1B taking the throw, they are now at second instead of first.

That is about the only situation I could see happening on a walk where interference could be a factor. As an ump, what would you do in this situation?


How about same situation except R2 at 3B and R2 scores after the interference?

I'm sure I'll get blasted so fire away.

[Edited by gsf23 on Aug 29th, 2003 at 01:02 PM]
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"."
- Harry Caray -
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 01:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,474
Live Ball

Bad choice to throw to 1st rather than get runner advancing from third. BR is not in jeopardy in my game until he passes 1st - ball got past catcher, he is throwing from foul territory, runner is inside diamond, poor throw, no interference.

Don't know. Had to be there. shrug... (Nice defense coach.)
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 01:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by gsf23
Here is a situation that could happen with the walk and the throwing lane.

No one on base and B1 at bat with a 3-2 count. Pitch is thrown in the dirt and B1 checks his swing as the ball gets away from the catcher. Plate umpire calls ball. B1 takes off hard to first. The catcher, believing that the batter went around, gathers the ball and throws down to first to get the out on the dropped third strike. The runner, outside the three foot lane, interfers with 1B taking the throw and ball goes out into right field and runner takes second.

Now, if I were a coach I would argue for the interference on this play. If the catcher waits for an appeal on the checked swing, he/she may not be able to throw down in time to get the out on the dropped third strike. Because the runner interfered with 1B taking the throw, they are now at second instead of first.

That is about the only situation I could see happening on a walk where interference could be a factor. As an ump, what would you do in this situation?
And that is fine because if a SWING is ruled, it is no longer a "walk" which makes the throw a viable play and the INT applies.

__________________
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
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 02:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

And that is fine because if a SWING is ruled, it is no longer a "walk" which makes the throw a viable play and the INT applies.
So then are you saying that the catcher should wait for the appeal from one of the base umpires and loose the chance of putting the runner out instead of risking the throw and the appeal then being denied?
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"."
- Harry Caray -
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 548
Send a message via AIM to TexBlue
Wow, you guys came up with a kinda lose-lose here. Probably the only way out for the catcher is to make the throw, get it there before the runner, then appeal. If she gets the appeal and the BU says she went, it's a dropped 3rd strike and then the BU gets to call the BR out. What it boils down to is the catcher has to take care of the business at hand, hope the 1st baseman is looking at the girl at 3rd for a possible play. Once the play stops, make the appeal and stand by for the fireworks show, which is surely to follow. I'd kinda like to be on the field for this call.

Rick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 03:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1