The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 09, 2014, 05:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
This is really easy to understand. You've been around for quite a while. I'm having trouble grasping why you're arguing with this.
I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 09, 2014, 11:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?
Then you are missing the point.

The runner was legally running the bases; she was then put out, and changed status to a retired runner.

The defensive player that was never in the act of fielding the ball, was simply ATTEMPTING to get to where she MIGHT have a chance to field the ball, was NEVER protected from obstruction; not while simply chasing, not while laying on the ground after obviously failing. Repeat; she was never in the act of actually fielding the batted ball, she has no protection from committing obstruction.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 10, 2014, 07:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?
I had no trouble grasping your analogy. And thanks for not answering me.

More to the point ... what is the point of your argument? Are you trying to say that we are interpreting the rule incorrectly, or are you trying to say the rules should be something other than what they are ... or are you trying to say something else.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 10, 2014, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?
Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 12, 2014, 05:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.
That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.

Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)
I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

Last edited by roadking; Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:43pm.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking View Post
I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?
You are correct, and IMO, both calls were absolutely terrible and actually gives the defense a reason to go head-hunting. And let me know when you can find a rule to support those calls.
__________________
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
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 15, 2014, 08:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking View Post
I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?
If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 15, 2014, 05:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.
I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 15, 2014, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking View Post
I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?
Unless there is something else contradicting this, "intent" is required with a thrown ball:

12.8.5 When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball,
interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.
EFFECT—The ball is dead. The batter-runner is awarded first base unless
she is the player in violation. If the official scorer judges the
batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a
base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base
runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last
base legally touched at the time of the interference.
If the interference, in the umpire’s judgment, is an obvious
attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the base
runner is put out, the runner being played on shall also be called
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
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 16, 2014, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking View Post
I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?
Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 16, 2014, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.
Well, let's not be too inclusive in that statement. If you "know" a fielder is throwing AT the runner, not a team mate, and the runner reaches up to defend themselves you have "intent" on both parties, but I'm not calling INT.
__________________
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seven Obstruction on one play. BuggBob Softball 7 Thu Jul 01, 2010 06:15pm
Obstruction play Clark Kent Basketball 43 Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:17pm
Another Obstruction play... Andy Softball 56 Sat Jul 15, 2006 06:37pm
OBR Obstruction: B becomes A - Play mikebran Baseball 10 Sat Mar 19, 2005 03:07pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1