Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Register Log in

Saw a new one today

Sep 26, 2011
18
3
So we are playing the Semifinal 14B USSSA state tourney bracket game today. Back and forth game with lots of scoring.

We were batting in the top of 4th with about 15 min left.

Nice rally going to score 3 runs to tie the game at 9 each. No outs. Our number 4 batter comes to the plate with a runner on second. She’s a big girl, not particularly fast and is DP today.

She takes a big swing and squibs a ball down the first base line. 3 charges fields the ball clean and goes to tag our runner. BR runs into the outstretched glove of the fielder and the ball gets dislodged and rolls into the dugout on 1st base side. R1 on second advances to 3rd and takes a turn and when the ball gets away runs home.

Plate Ump calls deadball. BR out on the tag. R1 gets called out because the ball was knocked away on purpose.

Runner did run into the tag bang bang play and it was right on the baseline. She didn’t make a move into or away from the fielder.

Correct call?

Jamie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apr 30, 2018
168
18
Hard to say without seeing it. Was the tag up higher where the batters hands could have come into play? Hands would have been swinging in a natural running motion and ump might have thought he saw her hand swinging to knock the glove away. Could have thrown the hands up on instinct to protect herself from running into the player making the tag and ump thought it was intential.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Sep 26, 2011
18
3
No arms swinging or swiping at the glove at all. May have moved the arms up to her Chest defensively but didn’t make a motion toward the glove.

There was no play on the runner at 3rd. She didn’t make a move to go home until the ball squirted out of play.

The field ump only chimed in after a prolonged discussion with the plate ump. He equated the play to the same as intentionally breaking up a double play. Manager disagreed and said the big difference was there was no attempt to make a play on the runner standing at 3rd base.

After the discussion field ump went so far as do to say it could’ve been called for malicious Contact. Overall crazy situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
May 29, 2015
342
43
In that umpire’s judgment of that play, yes the rulings were correct. USSSA rules state “If the batter runner interferes, the Umpire shall call the batter runner and the runner who has advanced the nearest to home base out.” (Rule 8, Section 18.H, Note 4)
 
Sep 26, 2011
18
3
Based on umpires judgement (gotta love how that protects almost every call Blue can make) the rules were applied correctly. BR out on the tag R1 out on the INT.

Devils advocate: Now what stops fielders from “dropping” the ball after as she tags the BR to get the free out?

I know INT doesn’t have to be intentional but in this case shouldn’t intent play a big part?

If (in the umpires judgement) there wasn’t intent just a train wreck what would’ve been the ruling?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: ian

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,363
48
Don't know about Utrip, but in other rule sets, there is no such thing as a "train wreck".
 
Sep 26, 2011
18
3
Not a technical term but have read it specifically on LL baseball sites when my girls were in LLSB.

Usually it occurs when the fielder at 1st has to come off the bag to catch a poorly thrown ball and gets tangled with the BR. Bang bang play on the home plate side of first. Runner is hustling to the base fielder is make a play on the thrown ball.

Worst instance I say was a LL regional game in Bristol where a player dislocated her shoulder catching a thrown ball up the line as the runner was heading into first. No OBS no INT called. Yes an ugly collision a “train wreck” but no penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2014
1,866
63
Yeah unfortunately for you this is a strict judgement call and once judged by the umpire they applied the rule correctly.

Honestly most umpires that don't understand the rules aren't smart enough to make sure they make a ruling based on judgement instead of a rule application and the one ones that do know the rules well enough are usually trying to do the right thing and aren't going to try and twist the rules so it lands on judgement versus application. Occasionally you run into the both smart and smart a$$ umpire who will just go around and around and then the second you ask for final clarification to protest the call to either UIC or TD they change what they have been arguing and go straight to a rule that they know is a judgement call and hang their hat on that...to which at that point you really have no recourse and those are the umps to really make sure you don't cross cause they want the game to be about them and showing how smart they are...one of my super pet peeves and thankfully not too many out there that fit this category most of the umps that are hard to deal with are simply ignorant of the rules. Especially if there is a protest fee involved NEVER protest without the umpire clearly stating what rule they are applying.
 
Jun 7, 2019
51
18
As the umpires here have already stated, the play - if judged just as the way we've been told the game umps said it happened -had the rule being applied correctly. So no need for me to restate it. But I can tell you that nothing about the description of that play as seen and reported here by jppoker matches what we're being told the umpires did and said. So, I put my much preferred coach's hat on and started thinking.

Here's what I envision from the story. When he says the batter is "a big girl, not particularly fast", I hear "slow". Said it happened right on the 1B line and that she squibs the ball, so it's not that far from the plate. Also said that the fielder made the play with her "outstretched glove", meaning she was either on (or right next to) the line and reaching her glove out toward the oncoming runner, or off the line and reaching out to her left to make the tag before the runner ran by. But he also said the runner didn't make a move into or away from the fielder, so if the 1Bman was also on the line, the runner would have had to stop moving forward for it to be true that she didnt make a move into the 1Bman.

Sorry for the long analysis, but this doesn't add up. The play as described has the batter dribble one off her bat to the right side, 1Bman charged, fielded the ball and then reached out to her left to tag the slow runner as she went by. Tag gets runner, ball comes loose, a normal fast pitch occurence, especially at 14UB.

But the umps react differently, other than the mandatory dead ball call, which would have been called with or without interference. The plate ump says the ball was "knocked away on purpose" and the base ump said he could have called it malicious contact. Those two renditions of that play have absolutely nothing to do with each other! No wonder there was an uproar. Wish I could have seen it, because I hate to think that umps would make up a story to cover up a bad call. And no reason to doubt jppoker's telling of that story either. Just saying that, as it appears that it occurred, there should be no doubt as to what happened. And yet there is.

By the way, the argument your coach had about there being no play at 3B, and the BU comparing it to breaking up a DP, were both totally irrelevant. As TMIB already stated, in USSSA, if the batter runner interferes, she is called out as well as the runner closest to home. Even the fact that the D had absolutely no chance of even making a play on the runner at 3rd - let alone getting an out - has nothing to do with this call on this play.
 

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
33,863
Messages
490,713
Members
15,461
Latest member
AOSOFTBALL
Top