| 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 |
|
|
|
Rule In A Pickle!
by Dave
Monday, August 25, 2008
Substantially revised 8/26Ed writes in to ask a question about a questionable ruling his team suffered recently as follows:"Runner on 3B. After the pitch, she draws a throw from catcher to 3B. Runner breaks for home, and is caught in pickle. She heads backs to 3B, then home. On her way home, catcher is about 5 feet up the line, and in basepath, and doesn't have the ball. The ball arrives to the catcher a split second before runner runs into catcher, and the runner knocks the ball lose. Umpire calls runner out for making contact, and tells us she has to slide.
What should the runner do in this situation? If a) she slides she'll never reach home; b) she runs around the catcher, she's out of the basepath; and c) she runs into the catcher, she's out for interference.
These are 14 y/o girls, playing ISA rules."
Before we begin looking at this, I want to address an issue contained in Ed's question. One of the alternatives Ed proposes is "b) she runs around the catcher, she's out of the basepath." I know we've discussed this before but, in case you missed it, running in the basepaths is not a golden rule - all runners do not need to always be in the basepaths. The only time one should be called out for failing to remain in the basepaths occurs when a runner leaves the paths in order to avoid a tag.
In practice, this rule can cause you trouble, particularly in pickles (run downs). I have never seen an instance in which a pickled runner leaves the basepath and in which she was not called out specifically for that reason. I've never seen an instance in which the ump called her safe after she left the basepaths and then, when the defensive team argued the call, the ump told them she left the basepaths in order to avoid contact. So, I do not believe this is an effective alternative. Still, what else are we left with? If she slides, she will never reach home and definitely be out. So let's look at what did happen and how the rules should be applied.
The ISA rulebook is available online here: ISA rulebook, pdf file.
To begin with, as a general softball matter, fielders are not allowed to stand in baselines, blocking oncoming runners, unless they are in actual possession of the ball in most kinds of play including Pony, NSA, ASA, etc. That constitutes obstruction. However, ISA seems to be a little different than other bodies in regards to this issue.
ISA rules state:
"RULE 7 - BATTER-RUNNER AND RUNNER
Section 6 - Runners Are Entitled To Advance Without Liability To Be Put Out.
B. When a fielder, not in possession of the ball, not in the act of fielding a batted ball impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases."
There is no precise discussion of fielders and runners involved in a pickle or a fielder in the act of catching a thrown ball being allowed to block a base here. Essentially, if a fielder impedes a baserunner while not in possession of the ball, it looks like she committed obstruction.
However, Rule 7-6, B(4) states:
"If a defensive player is fielding a thrown ball and the flight carries or draws them into the path of the base runner, then it would not be constituted as obstruction."
So, while a fielder apparently has no right to stand in the path of the baserunner while not in actual possession of the ball, should the throw cause her to get into the baserunner's path and cause her to impede the baserunner while trying to catch the ball, that is an exception to the general rule. In this case, it would seem that the catcher is in the runner's basepath, impeding her, while trying to catch a throw. The throw didn't draw her into the baseline. She was there anyway. But, it can be argued, the throw drew her into the basepath. That's the way the umpire would probably see it. But in this case, it turns out that doesn't matter either with respect to the call the ump did make.
A further examination of obstruction rules reveals something else. There used to be a provision in almost every rulebook which stated that a fielder "in the act of catching a throw" could not be obstructing a baserunner. Many, if not most, rulebooks did away with this a while ago. These rules were changed to require the fielder to be in possession of the ball or risk being called for obstruction.
I remember sitting in a Pony Nationals manager's meeting maybe a year or two ago and being told to go back to our hotels and discuss obstruction with our players. The UIC told us that a fielder must have actual possession of the ball or would be called for obstruction. He noted that the rule no longer contained anything about "in the act of catching a throw." He insisted this change would be rigidly enforced. Of course, the next day, that precise situation occurred and our runner was called out!
But ISA rules regarding obstruction contain the following:
"Rule 8 Base Running
Section 5 Base runners are entitled to advance without liability to be put
out:
B. When a fielder obstructs a base runner from making a base, unless the fielder is trying to field a batted ball, has the ball ready for a tag or is about to receive a thrown ball."
This provision is obviously inconsistent with what I just said and permits the catcher to be exactly where she was.
(Let me give proper credit here. When I first wrote the piece, I missed this aspect. I thought ISA had adopted the rule change to remove the "in the act of catching a throw" exception to the obstruction rule. My error was pointed out by Jeff who often writes to discuss points with me. Thanks Jeff.)
So, if the catcher was allowed to be in the baseline, if she couldn't be called for obstruction, because she was "about to receive a thrown ball," then I suppose we would have to look further and then ascertain whether the runner should maybe be called out.
In this case, the umpire claimed that the runner was out because "she didn't slide." It is fair to say that most of us have seen this call many times. I get confused by it however when I look to the rules. The general concept is what is known as the "collision rule." ISA rules on the issue are:
"Rule 8, Section 8 - The base runner is out:
T. When a defensive player has the ball and is waiting for the runner and the runner remains on their feet and deliberately, with great force, crashes into the defensive player; the runner is declared out. EFFECT: The ball is dead and all other runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the collision ..."
In the case we are examining, the umpire called the runner out because she didn't slide. The "runner remains on their feet" clause is the only place you are going to see any implied or other reference to a requirement to slide.
I get annoyed when umps invoke a "requirement to slide." It is always applied against me and never invoked in my team's favor!
I have heard the requirement to slide expressed many times. I have asked a number of umps about it and never received an adequate reply. Off the field, after games, what many of them will tell me is that sliding creates a presumption that the baserunner has done everything in her power to avoid contact - the collision rule does not operate then. They may refer to the rule noted above or another like it, depending on the type of play, and claim that it is their judgment whether the runner would have been out but for the collision. When you point out that the "on her feet" rule only applies when she is obviously out, you usually get shrugs and/or a desire to end the conversation. I have rarely seen a consistent application of this particular aspect of the collision rule. And, as I said, it semes like it is always applied against me, never for me.
A few years back, we had an argument with ASA umps on a force play at home. Bases were loaded, a grounder was dribbled back to the pitcher who fielded it, bobbled the ball slightly and then made a shuffle-pass to the catcher standing on the plate. The runner collided with the catcher who dropped the ball, possibly as long as half a second, maybe a little less, after she had caught and held it. The umpire called the girl safe at home. Somebody yelled, "she has to slide." That raised the hair on my arms and the back of my neck but not as much as the response from the baserunner who yelled to the crowd, "I don't slide!" This was a 16 or 17 year old girl who was a decent high school player and had at least 5 years of ASA tournament experience under her belt. The umpire had actually been a guy who had previously told me that runners have to slide always! Presumably they don't have to slide on force plays? Contact is permitted on those? Even when the runner is obviously out?
Clearly when the ball arrives to the base before the runner, is held, however briefly, by the fielder, and is dislodged as a result of the contact, the runner must be called out. That is precisely what the rules envision. Runners are not allowed to purposely dislodge balls. She would have (obvious to anyone besides the ump) been out but for the collision.
But I digress. The bottom line is the typical major league play in which the big guy rounds third, heads for home, the catcher awaits his arrival with ball in hands, and teeth gritted, is something we try to avoid in softball, something prohibited by the rules of the game. It may be great theatre in baseball but there are so many injuries caused by it, sometimes career threatening, that we should leave this sort of thing to other sports like roller derby. In fastpitch softball, you can't run down a catcher who is holding onto the ball long before you arrive.
However, more to the circumstances in the initial question, ISA rules also contain the following provision:
"Rule 7-6, B(5) If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not make the collision rule [interference or obstruction]. This is merely incidental contact."
Based on that, it seems pretty clear the umpire's ruling was erroneous. The phrase, when a runner is obviously going to be out and makes contact "while remaining on their feet," implies that a slide is necessary (though only when she is obviously going to be out). And in a pickle situation, it is hard for me to see that she would "obviously" have been out. "Obvious out" is in the eye of the beholder. Most umps fail to apply this conjunctive part of the rule. They want runners to slide, period.
Still, pickles should be different especially when fielders block the basepaths and umps are going to call runners out the moment they step outside the basepath. It is one thing if the throw arrives and the runner drives into her in an apparent attempt to knock the ball out. But when there is incidental contact, the collision rule should not apply.
In retrospect, not being at the particular game, I would guess the umpire in his or her judgment made the ruling based upon the runner staying on her feet reagrdless of the ball arriving at about the same time. He or she applied the rule different than it is expressed in the actual rulebook. But, I suppose that arguing the call, with rulebook in hand ,would not change the outcome except, perhaps, by making you observe the remainder of the game from the parking lot. I doubt if any dispassionate further analysis would have persuaded him or her to Ed's way of seeing things. Many umpires, regardless of the rules under which a contest is played, insist that there is always a requirement to slide.
When an ump invokes the rule where the runner is too far from home (or another base) to be expected to reasonably slide and still make it to that base, this really bothers me. And when such a ruling is made in a kind of play which specifically makes the collision rule inapplicable due to everybody coming together simultaneously, that really gets me juiced.Labels: interference, obstruction, rules, umpiring
 
|
|
|
