The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 08:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
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."
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?
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
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 08:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.
We don't always agree... but we sure do here.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 08:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: She contacted her... she didn't "barrel over" her.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Coach, the rule says she can't crash into her. Our rules book clarifies this to mean it is to apply to a fielder waiting to apply a tag.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation
This is how my conversation would differ.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 10:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
..."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."
Actually, it doesn't quite say that (the underlined part).

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.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 11:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
Dakota,

I was just envision a continuing conversation, playing devil's advocate if you will.
FWIW, I take pretty much everything Mike says as bible, and the basis of my personal interpretations.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 11:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Dakota,

I was just envision a continuing conversation, playing devil's advocate if you will.
FWIW, I take pretty much everything Mike says as bible, and the basis of my personal interpretations.
Fair enough. I've been known to do that from time to time myself!
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 12:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 10:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
This is how my conversation would differ.

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:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
"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."
What grey area? Rule seem quite clear and straight forward. Another situation where umpires are going out of their way to protect a player who hasn't earned it.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 07:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
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.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 07:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
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)
That is what I presented. I made a point of stating that the fielder did not move solely for the purpose of eliminating the "what iffing" this to death. Apparently, more credit was given than due.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 07:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
Red face

And I would have seen that, had the rulebook PDF on my work computer been newer than 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 09:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
I truly don't appreciate you calling my explanation of what I've been told the rule is meant to cover, "Bullshit". That's beneath you.

Quote:
Meanwhile, three damn pages and not one of you have checked the rule, as requested.
Not one of us? Didn't you just quote me discussing that rule? Didn't I mention that particular rule very early in this conversation? Didn't I invite you, specifically, to explain to us why you would apply that specific rule to this case?

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
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 11:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
...you calling... "Bullshit". That's beneath you....
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
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 11:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
...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.
Aha! I knew there had to be something behind you posting that situation!

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
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
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1