foot on the plate during at bat

[MTR]

Yes, SC plays under FED rules. The reason the lawyers were able to get involved in this case was the umpires did not follow the appropriate rain delay procedure. If they had waited the required time, and informed the teams properly, it would not have been challenged by the legal system.

It did change the umpire instructions for rain games thereafter in my opinion. We played shortly after (4A division). Very important game. As soon as there was any amount of rain, they immediately suspended the game. Waited, the rain stopped, and we continued. Previous instructions were to always try everything to get the game in, even if shortened.

That was the other aspect of the 3A game in question. The rain was coming down so hard in the 5th, when team #1 gained the lead, it should not have been played either.

In my opinion also, the game changes so much for the pitchers to grip a wet ball, that important games (like HS where communities get involved, and hire lawyers) it is better to stop games when it is obvious the game is being effected by a wet ball.

Load of crap. Either the field is playable or it isn't. Unless there is some ridiculous rule requiring umpires to wait a specific amount of time (which is absurd), the umpires did nothing wrong or improper as described. For that matter, it sounds as if they handled it perfectly.

Equally absurd is getting lawyers involved in a sporting event. What a waste of time and money involving the judicial system and even they screwed it up.

 

[SCDad]

Load of crap. Either the field is playable or it isn't. Unless there is some ridiculous rule requiring umpires to wait a specific amount of time (which is absurd), the umpires did nothing wrong or improper as described. For that matter, it sounds as if they handled it perfectly.

Equally absurd is getting lawyers involved in a sporting event. What a waste of time and money involving the judicial system and even they screwed it up.

Look it up, it is all true. Call it what you want.

Umpires needed to call the game a Rain Delay, then wait 30 or so minutes to see if it got better. Then if not, declare the team after 5 innings the winner.

This was not done. They told the teams to hit the buses, current score stands, and finish the game from the stop point, the next day. Then called the team on the bus who was ahead, and told them they lost.

It is not the first time a school has had lawyers go to the SC state house and file papers. Done numerous times in football. Softball is right behind. Go figure.

For those who were there, they should never had played the 5th for the conditions were unplayable then. In the end, the right decision was made.

A HS playoff softball game should not be decided because of rain conditions, IMO, period. Look at the college World Series. That game was decided strictly upon which pitcher could simply throw strikes in a DRIVING rainstorm. A joke. Adverse conditions, sure, but a driving rainstorm, where the outcome is decided only upon who can grip a soaking wet softball?

I did not have a dog in the fight.

 

[Comp]

And exactly how is it fair to simply call a mulligan and start the game over from the beginning? Both teams were playing in the same conditions, neither was put at any more of a disadvantae than the other.

 

[SCDad]

Both teams were not playing under the same conditions.

The driving rainstorm started in the bottom of the 5th, and the pitcher could not throw strikes. The team who was behind score 2 runs after being down to go up by 1 run.

The top of the 6th, in the same driving rainstorm, the other pitcher could not throw strikes either, The other team scored 2 runs, to go ahead by 1, and they called the game.

And before you call out the pitchers for not being able to pitch in the rain, one of the pitchers was the 2013 National Gatorade HS Softball Player of the Year, honored in NYC with Lebron James and the other greats.

 

[Comp]

Im still not seeing where calling mulligan and replaying the game from the beginning was fair to either team either. By your account 4 1/2 inning of the game had been played without weather incident. Substitutions may have been made, there may have been players unavailable for the original game etc.

 

[SCDad]

Im still not seeing where calling mulligan and replaying the game from the beginning was fair to either team either. By your account 4 1/2 inning of the game had been played without weather incident. Substitutions may have been made, there may have been players unavailable for the original game etc.

It is just a true story, highly charged, and written publically about, happening last spring in a 3A HS playoff game.

My morale of the story, is the outcome went against every rule written on HS softball. The result was many, and probably the majority, agreed with the final decision. I am certain the committee making the decision called upon a bunch of experts in the area on what to decide.

Just goes to show, even the most hard fast rules by the FED softball federation can and will be changed. Tough for the "rule-makers" to swallow. And all the more reason I focus more on what is actually being called, than the actual rule book.

 

[SCDad]

Article mentions nothing about courts being involved, only that it was appealed to the executive committe who voted 8-6 to replay the game.

Daniel-Chapman ordered to replay playoff softball game

An appeal to the executive committee was made originally. They decided to let the initial ruling stand "at first". Lawyers got involved, with a judge. Then, suddenly the executive committee, decided to have a more formal meeting.

That is how I recall. I do know there were legal maneuvers, exactly what I am unsure.

And my memory of the scoring is a little bit off. Call me wrong on this too. The jist of the story is the same.

 

[MTR]

Both teams were not playing under the same conditions.

The driving rainstorm started in the bottom of the 5th, and the pitcher could not throw strikes. The team who was behind score 2 runs after being down to go up by 1 run.

The top of the 6th, in the same driving rainstorm, the other pitcher could not throw strikes either, The other team scored 2 runs, to go ahead by 1, and they called the game.

And before you call out the pitchers for not being able to pitch in the rain, one of the pitchers was the 2013 National Gatorade HS Softball Player of the Year, honored in NYC with Lebron James and the other greats.

You can try to justify this all you want, it is a load of shirt, period.

If the field is unplayable, it is unplayable. Most umpires are familiar with the fields they are working or seek out information from those who do. Obviously, SC has some screwed up game-ending rules as there is no such requirement in Rule 4 of the NFHS book.

However, based upon the NFHS rules, the umpires handled the situation just right. BTW, umpires do not declare winners of a shortened game. Either the rule book does or a qualified administrator makes the decision as to whether continue a suspended game or declare it official. At that time, the prescribed game-ending procedures are applied to determine the winner.

Apparently, in SC, they do things a bid differently.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

An appeal to the executive committee was made originally. They decided to let the initial ruling stand "at first". Lawyers got involved, with a judge. Then, suddenly the executive committee, decided to have a more formal meeting.

That is how I recall. I do know there were legal maneuvers, exactly what I am unsure.

According to another article, SCHSL suspends high school softball playoff, they tried getting a temporary restraining order from the 7th Judicial Circuit.

FWIW, the team that led after 5 innings won the replayed game.

 

[Umpire]

According to another article, SCHSL suspends high school softball playoff, they tried getting a temporary restraining order from the 7th Judicial Circuit.

FWIW, the team that led after 5 innings won the replayed game.

Let me guess...case number 30492 where the Court said it isn't getting involved and it is deferring to those initially responsible for making the call?