![]() |
|
|||
Mike,
OC overhears that conversation and politely contributes from the dugout: "Blue, the Rule Supplements, which are given to clarify any grey areas, state specifically that the fielder must be waiting to apply a tag! This doesn't contradict the rule, only clarifies it for this precise situation." |
|
|||
I mentioned that rule above, and why I did not think it applied here. If you think it does, please discuss.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
What it does say is that if the fielder is waiting to apply a tag, the runner must be called out. IOW, the "must" is on the umpire, not on the fielder. Further, later in the RS it at least implies that the "waiting to apply a tag" is not a requirement with the clarification that if the flight of a thrown ball draws the fielder into the path of the runner, it is not a crash. A fielder being drawing into the path of the runner by an errant throw is not waiting to apply a tag, either, so if waiting to apply a tag was a black and white requirement, this clarification would be unnecessary. Mike's OP scenario has me visualizing a quickly occurring sequence of bobble, control, crash. Hence (apart from a technical rules discussion), this situation could just as easily be ruled interfering with the fielder attempting to field the batted ball. Regardless, the way I look at it is RS's can never contradict the rule, but if they do, the contradictory part should be ignored (ref: the RS on Obstruction a few years ago that stated that blocking a base without the ball was obstruction, leaving out the small part about the runner actually being impeded). Secondly, the RS on interference in general (#33) makes it reasonably clear that the fielder in the continuous process of fielding the batted ball to attempting a play is protected.
__________________
Tom Last edited by Dakota; Thu May 07, 2015 at 11:21am. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
I saw the OP as still in the process of fielding a batted ball and "there were multiple opportunities to record an out".
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Well, you can bullshit as much as you like, but it doesn't become a good umpire. And the OP clearly states "knocked" down, so that is a bit more than contacted. Quote:
Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:18pm. |
|
|||
Envisioning this at game speed, I have INT, R3 out, all runners back, BR on 1st.
The fact that F4 didn't move forward or backward in the fielding of the ball leads me to believe R3 was going to plow into her whether she fielded it cleanly or not. So I have a flagrant act, and an EJ. (Cue the Jeopardy music) Last edited by jmkupka; Fri May 08, 2015 at 07:18am. |
|
|||
Quote:
However, the real point was to get someone to look at the damn rule which has been changed to include the runner closest to home being ruled out. I don't know whether this change was an error in compilation or someone just thought it was a better idea to rule out another runner. I'm willing to bet that someone is just assuming the runner causing the collision has been retired prior to it which as demonstrated in this thread is not necessarily true.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
What's with the belligerence on this thread, sir?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Having participated in a good many back-and-forth (ahem) discussions with Mike over the years, I think I can safely say you are not being fair to Mike here.
![]()
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't have a 2015 book, only a 2014, so your repeated insistence on reading the rule left me a bit mystified.
__________________
Tom |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interference or No? | JJ | Baseball | 2 | Thu Sep 06, 2012 01:21pm |
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference | bob jenkins | Baseball | 17 | Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm |
batters interference/interference by teammate | _Bruno_ | Baseball | 7 | Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:28am |
Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |
Interference at First | goldcoastump | Softball | 6 | Sat Aug 28, 2004 01:40am |