default
Member
There should also be a dugout sign (and on the back of the backstop) that reads:
"The more you complain, the smaller the strike zone will become..."
There should also be a dugout sign (and on the back of the backstop) that reads:
"The more you complain, the smaller the strike zone will become..."
default
Member
You know, I just don't understand fans or coaches who think they are doing their team any good by haraunging umpires for their calls, especially the calling of balls and strikes. Probably 80 out of a 100 times you are going to get the smaller strike zone in response, and probably only 1-9 times out of a 100 are you going to get an umpire who "corrects" his zone in response to the critical comments.
As the player gets older and is being observed by college coaches, if the college coach makes the connection between a player and her complaining parent(s), that can be a pretty big black mark. I wouldn't think a college coach would want a fan who generated a risk that the strike zone would be affected by the fan's vocal challenges to the umpire.
default
Member
I witnessed this same thing yesterday at a HS game. A parent from the opposing team loudly informed the umpire that they should only be strikes when they are over the plate. This was in response to a breaking ball that "may" have caught the front corner.
The umpire did have a definite pitcher's strike zone, but he was consistent with it for both teams throughout the game. In a lot of instances, he almost seemed to call it a strike as long as the pitcher hit the catcher's glove, regardless of how far inside or outside she set up.
The umpire did have a definite pitcher's strike zone, but he was consistent with it for both teams throughout the game. In a lot of instances, he almost seemed to call it a strike as long as the pitcher hit the catcher's glove, regardless of how far inside or outside she set up.
default
Member
At a tournament last year, the home plate ump came into our dugout between innings - sat down on the bench - and said "Wow, you're right. You DO have a better view of the outside corner of the plate from here"... 
default
Member
I believe Bretman enjoyed the opportunity to debate a topic with me. lol. I'm willing to bet money when he started reading my post he never envisioned it would end the way it did.
I'll let you in on a secret--------sometimes I never know where it will end up. lol. For interested women that want to know; I drive that way too.......
I'll let you in on a secret--------sometimes I never know where it will end up. lol. For interested women that want to know; I drive that way too.......
default
Member
DaBoss, you didn't contibute until page 6. This ship veered way off course long before you joined in...
default
Member
I actually have stopped caring much about the strike zone. It is what it is. The girls need ot be ready to hit the pitches they like regardless of location.
As long as it seems to be the same way for both teams I am good. It has been my experience that travel tournaments have above average umpires. The only time I get a bit chippy (almost always at MS or HS games) and the umpire seems to be managing the score. Like one pitcher is far supperior to the other so he adjust the stike zone to even out the game.........but I have never seen this in travel. The umpires rarely seem to ump the score. Just work the game.
My daughter is a catcher and I have watched her make some very close plays at 2nd. But I thought the girls were all safe. While a parent has shown me a CAM Corder video stopped still framed showing the tag on the girl before she hit the base.......LOL Not sure how anyone can see that stuff real time. If your margin for error is that close do not complain if you lose.
As long as it seems to be the same way for both teams I am good. It has been my experience that travel tournaments have above average umpires. The only time I get a bit chippy (almost always at MS or HS games) and the umpire seems to be managing the score. Like one pitcher is far supperior to the other so he adjust the stike zone to even out the game.........but I have never seen this in travel. The umpires rarely seem to ump the score. Just work the game.
My daughter is a catcher and I have watched her make some very close plays at 2nd. But I thought the girls were all safe. While a parent has shown me a CAM Corder video stopped still framed showing the tag on the girl before she hit the base.......LOL Not sure how anyone can see that stuff real time. If your margin for error is that close do not complain if you lose.
default
Member
At a tournament last year, the home plate ump came into our dugout between innings - sat down on the bench - and said "Wow, you're right. You DO have a better view of the outside corner of the plate from here"...
and I'd have come back with, "Good, now you'll start call those pitches strikes."
default
Member
default
Member
MustangSally,
I have read every post and enjoyed the stories and anecdotes on this thread. It wasn't till page 6 and the topic at the moment that I was moved to share my thoughts. I might be old but very aware that the thread has undertaken many topics over the course of 7 pages but thanks for reminding me.
I have read every post and enjoyed the stories and anecdotes on this thread. It wasn't till page 6 and the topic at the moment that I was moved to share my thoughts. I might be old but very aware that the thread has undertaken many topics over the course of 7 pages but thanks for reminding me.
default
Member
Ok here we go. Situation is this...runner on 2B, RH batter with 3 balls takes ball 4. She starts moving towards 1B and the catcher steps up to nail the runner at 2 who took a monster lead-off. The throw hits the batter-runner in the helmet and deflects OB.
interference was not intentional in this case.
Is the batter-runner out or does she still get 1B? Does the runner at 2 get 3B?
I believe the batter-runner should be out and the runner at 2 sent back to 2, but wanted Bretman's input.
Thanks!
interference was not intentional in this case.
Is the batter-runner out or does she still get 1B? Does the runner at 2 get 3B?
I believe the batter-runner should be out and the runner at 2 sent back to 2, but wanted Bretman's input.
Thanks!
default
Member
It only took us eight pages to get here, but I think maybe we finally have a strange play where the umpires (almost) got it right!
When the batter received ball four she became (as the rule book puts it) a batter-runner. She is legally entitled to advance directly to first base. So if that's what she was doing, she wasn't doing anything illegal.
If she's hit by a throw, it's the same as a runner getting hit by a throw anywhere else on the field. It isn't interference unless the runner does something intentional, deliberate or that isn't associated with a normal effort to legally advance the bases.
A catcher should know that a batter receiving ball four will be advancing straight to first! She needs to be aware of that and adjust her throwing lane accordingly.
If this was a batter- one not yet entitled to advance- and she was hit by the throw while out of the batters box, then she would be out (which might be what you are thinking of).
From what you described, I have a batter-runner accidentally hit by a thrown ball. The ball would remain live and there would be no penalty. Since the ball went out of play, you then also have a base award (two bases). The batter-runner gets second base. The runner on second gets home.
When the batter received ball four she became (as the rule book puts it) a batter-runner. She is legally entitled to advance directly to first base. So if that's what she was doing, she wasn't doing anything illegal.
If she's hit by a throw, it's the same as a runner getting hit by a throw anywhere else on the field. It isn't interference unless the runner does something intentional, deliberate or that isn't associated with a normal effort to legally advance the bases.
A catcher should know that a batter receiving ball four will be advancing straight to first! She needs to be aware of that and adjust her throwing lane accordingly.
If this was a batter- one not yet entitled to advance- and she was hit by the throw while out of the batters box, then she would be out (which might be what you are thinking of).
From what you described, I have a batter-runner accidentally hit by a thrown ball. The ball would remain live and there would be no penalty. Since the ball went out of play, you then also have a base award (two bases). The batter-runner gets second base. The runner on second gets home.
default
Member
Bretman:
It's probably been there forever, but kudos to the Bear for characterizing you as not only an addicted member but also our "Resident Rule Expert". We would be so much more ignorant without your input.
It's probably been there forever, but kudos to the Bear for characterizing you as not only an addicted member but also our "Resident Rule Expert". We would be so much more ignorant without your input.
default
Member
Bretman, you're amazing. Not only did you provide the ruling, you also (as you usually do) provided the explanation of the ruling.
I am not worthy.
I am not worthy.
default
Member
Had my SS go into the baseline to field a ball, as she is bending over to field the ball, the runner going to third starts to run infront of her and then hurdles her as she is trying to field the ball. Needless to say the girl jumping my SS caused her to miss the ball...and we got no interference call!! His explanation to me was the runner had a right to the basepath and she was hurdling my runner to avoid contact. BULLSHIT!!!....you are an absolute dumbass and should have your license yanked!! Getting so sick of the shitty umpires we have come do the MOAC games I'm about ready to go postal!!!
default
Member
High school rules specifically prohibit hurdling a fielder, unless the fielder is lying on the ground. They consider it a safety thing. It doesn't matter if the hurdle caused the fielder to miss the ball or not, or even if the fielder was fielding the ball. Dead ball, runner out is the penalty.
One more reason why it would be nice if the OHSAA allowed protests...
One more reason why it would be nice if the OHSAA allowed protests...
default
Member
Thats the rule I quoted to him...the runner cannot leave her feet, and both umpires said I was wrong. I didn't get sanctioned as an umpire 9 years ago for nothing!! I've just about had all I can take...I'm ready to burn that $100 and take my suspension so I can really jump in one of these guys asses!!! Its not that they are just wrong...they are so confident and cocky about it!! Would just like to smack them upside the head with a rule book!!!
default
Member
Hmmm, yes they got the call wrong. However, as bretman has stated many times, going postal about it is not the way to get the call right, nor is it the right way to address it even if they still won't get the call right after a reasonably calm discussion. The right way is to go through the AD to the assigner/head umpire with the particulars of the situation. The assigner will then have a discussion with the umps in question and hopefully they won't make the same mistake again. It won't help you that time, but it is the only way to go.
A coach is supposed to be a role model to these young ladies. Teaching them to get irate and get thrown out of a game is NOT being a good role model, even if you are getting hosed.
A coach is supposed to be a role model to these young ladies. Teaching them to get irate and get thrown out of a game is NOT being a good role model, even if you are getting hosed.
default
Member
Bretman-could you give your professional opinion on the rule of hitting a walked batter being in the field of play and being hit by the catcher as she goes to 1st base being ruled out?Would you change this rule?Legal for catcher to do so-but could start a "bush-league" play debate.It's a legal play but I don't do it.
default
Member
My opinion would be that the NFHS sometimes overdoes it with some of their rule interpretations. Sometimes they try to legislate fairness into their rules and that creates rulings that go against the rest of the softball world.
Back a few years ago, they came out with a ruling that on a walk, the three-foot running lane rule is to be enforced- even though a throw to first in this situation is NOT an attempt to retire a player. It can be a common strategy to stop a walked batter from rounding first, especially if there is a runner on third base. But if you throw to first following a walk, you certainly are not trying to make an out on the walked batter, who is entitled to advance to first without being put out.
This is just one of several plays where they have expanded the running lane rule to cover plays that it was not originally intended to cover. For instance, they have another interpretation where a batter-runner is advancing to first base, is put out, then is hit by a throw to the plate while out of the running lane, calling this interference. This is an interpretation that has never been used by any other santioning body. The rule covering the running lane clearly states that it applies when a runner interferes with a fielder at first base who is receiving a throw.
I guess that their message is "We really, really want runners to stay inside the three-foot running lane, no matter what". But with these interpretations they have expanded the interpretation of the running lane beyond what it was originally intended to address- the defense trying to retire a runner at first base.
Now, if the catcher makes a throw that the umpire judges was an attempt to purposely hit the batter-runner, rather than to field the ball to a fielder at first base, you should not rule it interference. If the umpire judges that the throw was not "to the fielder", but "at the runner" with the intent to hit her, and interference is not called, the defense runs the risk of causing a loose ball that will allow other runners to continue advancing. Also, depending on the severity of the infraction, you could be looking at an unsportsmanlike conduct or even malicious contact ejection on the catcher.
To be interference, the throw would have to be in the direction and vicinity of the fielder taking the throw, such that the throw would have a reasonable chance of actually being caught. If the throw IS "to the fielder" and the batter-runner IS out of the running lane, it definitely IS interference. If the batter-runner gets hit in that case, it's her own fault for being out of the lane.
Of course, if the throw hits the batter-runner while she is inside the running lane it should never be called as interference. Live ball, play on.
Again, these are interpretations for high school play only. They will not apply to other sanctioning bodies, like ASA. Personally, I don't really care for them, but if I'm working a high school game I'm bound to follow them.
Back a few years ago, they came out with a ruling that on a walk, the three-foot running lane rule is to be enforced- even though a throw to first in this situation is NOT an attempt to retire a player. It can be a common strategy to stop a walked batter from rounding first, especially if there is a runner on third base. But if you throw to first following a walk, you certainly are not trying to make an out on the walked batter, who is entitled to advance to first without being put out.
This is just one of several plays where they have expanded the running lane rule to cover plays that it was not originally intended to cover. For instance, they have another interpretation where a batter-runner is advancing to first base, is put out, then is hit by a throw to the plate while out of the running lane, calling this interference. This is an interpretation that has never been used by any other santioning body. The rule covering the running lane clearly states that it applies when a runner interferes with a fielder at first base who is receiving a throw.
I guess that their message is "We really, really want runners to stay inside the three-foot running lane, no matter what". But with these interpretations they have expanded the interpretation of the running lane beyond what it was originally intended to address- the defense trying to retire a runner at first base.
Now, if the catcher makes a throw that the umpire judges was an attempt to purposely hit the batter-runner, rather than to field the ball to a fielder at first base, you should not rule it interference. If the umpire judges that the throw was not "to the fielder", but "at the runner" with the intent to hit her, and interference is not called, the defense runs the risk of causing a loose ball that will allow other runners to continue advancing. Also, depending on the severity of the infraction, you could be looking at an unsportsmanlike conduct or even malicious contact ejection on the catcher.
To be interference, the throw would have to be in the direction and vicinity of the fielder taking the throw, such that the throw would have a reasonable chance of actually being caught. If the throw IS "to the fielder" and the batter-runner IS out of the running lane, it definitely IS interference. If the batter-runner gets hit in that case, it's her own fault for being out of the lane.
Of course, if the throw hits the batter-runner while she is inside the running lane it should never be called as interference. Live ball, play on.
Again, these are interpretations for high school play only. They will not apply to other sanctioning bodies, like ASA. Personally, I don't really care for them, but if I'm working a high school game I'm bound to follow them.
