| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Run Her Over!!!!!!!
by Dave
Monday, October 08, 2007
I'm writing today's post for the benefit of the fan/parent who yelled "run her over" yesterday at a game we attended. I'm also writing this for the benefit of the ASA umpires who demonstrated zero understanding of the rules with respect to this issue on another play in another game. Finally, I'm writing for the benefit of the entire softball community because I feel we have almost completely lost our understanding of these critical rules.
There were two plays, as I said, in different games, which brought this to my attention. The first one occurred in an extremely tight game, 2-1, on a play with bases loaded when the ball was hit back to the pitcher who threw to her catcher at homeplate. The catcher made the catch, the play was a force out, and for unknown reasons the out-of-position umpire called the runner safe even though she never made any attempt to avoid contact at the plate and ran into the catcher. It was somewhat close because the runner from third was charging fast but the ump, still standing in his pitch calling position, couldn't see that the catcher cleanly caught the ball. Still, even out of position, he couldn't miss the fact that the runner never made any attempt to avoid contact. Also, the catcher had the ball at the time of contact and was standing with just one foot on homeplate to affect the force out. She was not blocking the plate from the runner from third.
After the play was dead and time had been called, team coaches came out to attend to their hurt catcher and, then, to complain to the ump that runner interference should be called. The ump first suggested that the girl was safe because he called obstruction. He had never made any signal nor verbalized any utterance regarding obstruction. He simply called the runner at home safe.
When coaches asked if they could protest, he replied affirmatively. Then, when the other coach pointed out that a $100 fee had to be paid to lodge a protest, he informed the coaches and the matter was dropped. The coaches made sure their catcher was alright and, because of the nature of the girl, they started joking with her and made her laugh. Unbelievably, the plate ump was overheard making a comment after the game about "how hurt could she have been when she laughed moments after the contact. That comment was not just unprofessional, it is completely irrelevant. There is no requirement that a defensive player be injured before a call of interference is made!
I was so completely incensed at the call that I screamed to the ump that he should read his rulebook every now and again. After he told the coaches that they could protest the call I began offering him money so he could buy a rulebook since he "obviously didn't own one!" My actions were completely inappropriate but I hope the umpire went home and read the rule with an unbiased eye. He doesn't know the rule and he should.
As a sidebar, the field umpire warned me "that's enough, sir" and proceeded to engage me in a stare-down-fight. That's completely unprofessional and in no way called for as I shut up immediately upon being warned. The stare-down should not have occurred. It demonstrated completely unnecessary and uncalled for machismo by a man who was being paid to supervise a game. And, it should be noted, the field umpire also did not understand the rule.
To examine the issue of obstruction and interference, I am turning to the NCAA rulebook although the contest in question was under "college showcase" and ASA rules. I do not possess an ASA rulebook and it is not published online. For the most part, the rules are very similar. One publication on the ASA web site says the two rules are substantially similar. There is another document, an ASA umpires primer on obstruction and interference which I'll use after I go into the general rules.
NCAA rules define:
A) Interference - "Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable ... Note: If both players' actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertent contact and neither interference nor obstruction."
B) Obstruction - "The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter's attempt to make contact with a pitched ball or that impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is about to receive a thrown ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional." For clarification purposes, "1. The defensive player must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive. 2. The act may be intentional or unintentional."
NCAA rules also state "A base runner may not remain on her feet and deliberately, with great force, crash into a defensive player (holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag)." To explain a bit further, "The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate ... The intent of this rule is to encourage ... to avoid such collisions, whenever possible ... A defensive player shall not block the base, plate or baseline without possession of the ball or not in the immediate act of catching the ball.
"Should an act of interference (offensive) occur after any obstruction (defensive), enforcement of the interference penalty would take precedence provided both violations involve the same base runner. For example, if an obstructed runner deliberately crashes into a fielder holding the ball, the obstruction call will be ignored, and the runner will be called out for interference."
When an umpire calls obstruction, "delayed dead ball is signaled. Obstruction is called and the runner is declared safe. Each runner must return to the last base legally touched ..."
Lastly, among the specific items which cannot be protested, interference and obstruction fall into this category.
The ASA umpires primer on obstruction and interference clearly states that a defensive player in possession of the ball cannot be called for obstruction.
There is certainly some element of umpires judgment involved in the play at home I described above. But no umpire should ever imply that he did, might have or would have called interference or obstruction after the fact. He either did or did not. In this case, he did not - he never signaled a dead ball of any sort, delayed or otherwise and he never uttered the word obstruction. He simply called the runner safe. I disagree with the call - I was sitting fifteen feet from home but that isn't the issue I'm describing. What I am describing is a base runner not making any attempt to avoid a collision with a catcher. What I'm describing is a situation in which it is simply NOT POSSIBLE for a call of obstruction.
Finally, it is clear to me that neither obstruction nor interference as judges by the umpire is a question which can form the basis of a protest. The umpires at this game seemed completely ignorant of that fact. Obstruction and interference are almost always questions of judgment as much as balls and strikes are. The only issues which are ever appropriate subjects for protests are the existence of a particular rule or the "non-judgmental" interpretation of a rule. If the rules are clearly and correctly understood, an umpire's judgment dictates the call. For example, if an umpire judged a play to involve obstruction but agreed that the fielder had possession of the ball - something that did not transpire in the incident I described - a team could protest with those particular stipulations and most likely win since the umpires interpretation of the rules was clearly erroneous. If the only issue was whether the umpire judged interference or obstruction to have occured, there is no basis for an appeal.
As an additional aside, the plate umpire must have recognized the possibility he made a mistake because his subsequent calls of balls and strikes were egregious. The next batter suffered the brunt. He called a second strike on a pitch that was a good foot outside and above her eyes!
I should also tell you that the call did not change the outcome of the game. My daughter drove in the winning run in the 9th!
A far more troubling incident, in my opinion, occured later that same day. We are a 14U team playing in what is billed as an 18U high school / travel team league. No standings are kept in the league because it is seen as developmental - it exists to give high school and travel players someplace to work on skills in the fall. Yesterday was the league's mid-season tournament. Winners in three divisions get $15 t-shirts! The tournament is a tremendous amount of fun and allows winning teams to play as much as 4 or 5 games in a single day.
As it happens, we were playing against the 18U team from our very same organization. There was a potential play at the plate which didn't evolve properly for a variety of reasons and the girl was easily safe at home. One of the parents from our 18U team yelled to, presumably, his daughter to "run her over," meaning plow over the catcher. I don't know the age of the runner but she plays 18U travel and high school ball, and our catcher is in middle school. That's irrelevant to any call on the field but I want to set the stage properly as it did very much color my feelings on the incident.
I have often heard a comment arise in youth sports and that is "you watch too much major league baseball." In this case the comment is entirely appropriate. In MLB, collisions occur with some regularity. MLB is an entertainment industry. Plate collisions are great theatre. But in youth sports, we're after something else.
Girls fastpitch softball does not in any way seek to have collisions between players at any time. They are to be avoided whenever possible. That is why we have the "avoid collision at all costs" rules which are contained in numerous expansions of rules via examples and explicitly discussed almost anywhere the subject arises.
I have often heard parents, players, coaches, and umpires claim that runners have to slide whenever there is a play, particularly at homeplate. In my understanding, there is no rule which ever expressly requires sliding per se. If an umpire wants to tell teams that he will call runners out for not sliding into home, I suppose you could argue that's his or her prerogative. And the ump is being fair if that is told to the teams before a game or tournament.
There are words to the effect that sliding is required on close plays at home and those read like this: "A base runner may not remain on her feet and deliberately, with great force, crash onto a defensive player (holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag)." This is close to a required sliding rule but it is not exactly that. It is a collision avoidance rule on close plays. Collision avoidance is expressly within the rules governing softball. A base runner's slide is presumed to be an attempt to avoid contact.
All softball goiverning bodies recognize that some contact is going to occur in the sport and they make allowances for "incidental contact" which cannot otherwise be avoided by two players who are acting appropriately. But, there is no room in this sport for "run her over" in any form whatsoever. Catcalls regarding this are decidedly bush league. The fact that this particular game was played in a no-standings, developmental league between two teams of the same organization, one theoretically 4 years older than the other, is particularly troubling. It demonstrates not only that we don't seem to know the rules of our game but that we have lost touch with our better selves.
I have witnessed a number of incidents at a huge volume of games over the years which can call into question the line between tough, gritty play, and deliberate, overly aggressive, rule infractions. I have watched base runners strike players with elbows on balls hit well beyond outfielders. I have seen infielders try to intimidate obviously younger base runners through various means including intentionally standing in base lines on steals and/or balls hit into the gaps. These incidents point to circumstances in which there has been a little too much baseball watching. They also point to something else. That is, we need to clean up our sport some, particularly in the youth version. Before that can happen, we need to have our on the field officials fully understand the rules they are charged with applying and enforcing. Then they need to agressively enforce those rules. Then the rest of us need to take a step back and realize why it is that we are involved in this sport.Labels: interference, obstruction, rules
 
|
|
|
