Runners under a "decoy" rule

[GI Tom]

I think I'm scheduled to call 10 this weekend, will report back if I have any INT's just for fun.

 

[bhblue]

I think I'm scheduled to call 10 this weekend, will report back if I have any INT's just for fun.

Will you be reporting just for fun, or calling INT's just for fun?

 

[GI Tom]

I'll report for fun, because I'm not arguing was or was not "prevented" with anyone.

And I hope I didn't jinx myself, you know how these things go. Last year, during the last tourney of the season (12U TB) in Dec, I made the mistake of telling one of my fellow officials I hadn't run a soul all year long. I was proud of that. I was giving guff to others about remaining calm and being a level headed official. (Even though there were a few that probably "should" have gone) I called north of 250 games last year, wouldn't you know that next game I had to eject one. No choice, he dropped not one curse word, but two, and in the same sentence so all of the world could hear. Heh.

Always seems to work that way. So to undo it if I did jinx myself, I officially declare: "I don't really care about INT's".

(whispers) I will still report back.

 

[MTR]

In a competitive game, it's my expectation that an umpire will call what he or she sees to the best of their ability, with fair application of the rules without any concern about how a specific call might impact the game's outcome. If you see INT, please call it instead of waiting to see what happens with F6's throw attempt.

MTR, am I out of line here?

Cannot agree more, but his point is that he thinks it should be changed. It has only been that way for 80+ years, so it must need to be changed by now because obviously doesn't work

 

[bhblue]

Cannot agree more, but his point is that he thinks it should be changed. It has only been that way for 80+ years, so it must need to be changed by now because obviously doesn't work

Never figured you for someone who would have a problem with understanding the written word. Momo'sDad's post is about his inability to understand how NCAA rules handle INT. It's not about using the DDB instead of how it's now done. I don't recall wanting to change 80iyrs of ASA rules. Although longevity doesn't always equal perfection IMO. Once again, so you don't have to go back and read, I merely was pointing out the inconsistencies is the rule.

 

[MTR]

Never figured you for someone who would have a problem with understanding the written word. Momo'sDad's post is about his inability to understand how NCAA rules handle INT. It's not about using the DDB instead of how it's now done. I don't recall wanting to change 80iyrs of ASA rules. Although longevity doesn't always equal perfection IMO. Once again, so you don't have to go back and read, I merely was pointing out the inconsistencies is the rule.

And so you don't have to go back, I do not believe there are any inconsistencies as it pertains to killing the ball immediately which has been the rule since, well the farthest I can document in 1936, so I'm off a couple years in proving it, but I doubt 1936 was the first year.

 

[grounder]

Cannot agree more, but his point is that he thinks it should be changed. It has only been that way for 80+ years, so it must need to be changed by now because obviously doesn't work

that way of thinking is dangerous. not only is it bad for the sport its bad for umpiring. we must always keep an open mind and welcome new ideas with open debate not abrupt dismissal just because its been done that way for umpteenth years ( no pun intended)

 

[bhblue]

Here's one more: Why is a delayed dead ball signaled for obstruction and a dead ball signaled for interference? Particularly in college since leaving early is DDB to allow the defense the possibility to turn a double play. Why not give them the same opportunity if interfered with?

MTR - Since you didn't go back, here's what I said. Play close attention beginning with the word "particularly ". I never meant to suggest that ASA change the way they call INT. The inconsistency lies in the way the NCAA handles leaving early compared to INT. Got it now?

BTW, while I'm not sure whether college softball existed in 1936, I do know the NCAA rules book did not. I believe they used ASA rules at some point, but obviously the powers that be (coaches) decided that those rules weren't adequate for their game. Your defense of ASA is admirable, but unnecessary.

 

[bhblue]

MTR - How long has the look back rule been around? You've made clear how much you dislike it. What's the statute of limitations on questioning "The Rules of Softball"? 10, 20, 80 years?

 

[GI Tom]

Well, I said I would report back after my weekend.

Not that any of this matters to this conversation, but I ended up calling 11 games this weekend and I had one INT and one request for an INT by a coach which I declined. This was 14U TB. INT was straight forward. Popup to 1B who is catching it right on the line between 1B and home and BR plows into her just as she's catching the ball. Both hit the dirt and ball falls to ground. OC's half hearted statement to me after I call it: "But blue, she was in the running lane? What's she supposed to do?" My response: Whatever is necessary to not interfere with the player making the play.

On the request for INT, which is a much more entertaining story to tell, it was a HTBT play on a runner going from 2B to 3B as the SS was attempting to make the play. My judgment was no INT. After play, DC calls time and comes out to me and this is how the conversation generally went:

DC: Blue, why wasn't that obstruction on the SS?
Me: Because the SS was fielding the ball.
DC: I thought I saw you with your left arm out?
Me: No coach, you did not.
DC: But why? Can you go ask your partner?
Me: Sure (I yell down to the plate from C) "Partner did you have obstruction on the SS?
Partner: NO!
Me: Anything else coach?
He just looked at me shaking his head and walked away.

I approached him after the game and explained the differences between OBS and INT.

Ironically, the INT call I had came after the above and the coach who asked me about OBS was the defense at the time in a completely different game. He definitely appreciated my call then.

So, I was back in good standing again with this particular coach.

However, as bit more of funtime umpire story telling , all of the above occurred on Saturday. On Sunday, I went back to, and probably remain, in bad standing with him when he began arguing with me (in his elimination game) that the hands are part of the bat. After about 30-45 seconds of me attempting to clarify for him, he insisted I call the UIC over for a ruling of which I was very happy to do. We all know, or should know, how that turned out.

Overall, a pretty smooth weekend with lots of good softball. Hope everyone else had a good weekend of softball if you were able to watch, play or call.