default
Member
awesome way to put it bretman!! No need for anymore injuries in the game of softball! ?It should be a fun sport!! ?;D
default
Member
"In the meantime, if coaches teach their fielders not to block bases without the ball and teach their runners not to crash into fielders, we will have eliminated the vast majority of problems on these type of plays."
OK, if I teach my girls above, what do I teach them when they dont crash into fielders and umpires say "well if there would have been contact I would have called it, but since there was no contact I cant help you". Umpires (not necessarily you but many) are basically teaching the girls to initiate contact in order to get the call, but risk being ejected for initiating malicious contact.
I said this in another thread, AND I DONT AGREE WITH THIS, but coaches should teach catchers to still block the plate. It is a no lose situation. If the ball arrives first, then no umpire will call obstruction. If the ball arrives late, it is only a 25% chance the umpire will make the obstruction call. And if he does, the girl would have been safe anyways if you dont block the plate because she beat the ball there. And if they arrive simultaneously, the umpire only has a 50/50 chance of making the right call anyway (50% of the people wont be happy with any call made, the other 50% will be happy
OK, if I teach my girls above, what do I teach them when they dont crash into fielders and umpires say "well if there would have been contact I would have called it, but since there was no contact I cant help you". Umpires (not necessarily you but many) are basically teaching the girls to initiate contact in order to get the call, but risk being ejected for initiating malicious contact.
I said this in another thread, AND I DONT AGREE WITH THIS, but coaches should teach catchers to still block the plate. It is a no lose situation. If the ball arrives first, then no umpire will call obstruction. If the ball arrives late, it is only a 25% chance the umpire will make the obstruction call. And if he does, the girl would have been safe anyways if you dont block the plate because she beat the ball there. And if they arrive simultaneously, the umpire only has a 50/50 chance of making the right call anyway (50% of the people wont be happy with any call made, the other 50% will be happy
default
Member
Lewred14,
If an umpire is actually telling you this in your games ("no contact, no obstruction" you have my sympathy, for you have ill-informed umpires.
Obstruction does not require contact. But there is another element required for an obstruction call that may or may not have happened on your play.
To have obstruction, you must have two things:
1) a fielder not in possession of the ball.
2) a runner that is actually impeded.
Absent either one of these elements, you cannot have obstruction.
Blocking the base alone and in itself is not enough for obstruction.
An "impeded" runner is one that alters her path to the base, slows down, tries to go around, slides and makes contact with the fielder or is otherwise prevented from taking the route to the base of her choosing by a fielder not in possession of the ball.
What can a coach do if he feels his runner has been obstructed? Here is the approach I would take. When I wa coaching a few years ago, I actually had a "no obstruction" call reversed this way.
Calmly request time. When granted, calmly approach the umpire and maintain a level, non-aggresive tone. (This is a good start whenever you need to talk to the umpire).
Start off with, "I have a question about that play. Did you see my runner (fill in the blank: slow down, change directions, slide into and make contact, go around...whichever fits the play)?"
If the answer is "no", you're pretty much shot down right there! In the umpire's judgement the runner was not impeded.
If "yes"...
Next ask, "When my runner (slowed, altered, etc.) did the catcher have possession of the ball?"
If "yes", again you might as well stop right there. In the umpire's judgement the catcher had the ball.
If "no"...
Restate what you have now confirmed. For instance, you could say, "So my runner was impeded and the fielder did not have possession of the ball. Is that what you've just told me?".
Unless the umpire changes his tune mid-stream, that is exactly what he has just told you. Hopefully, you can get a "yes" to that one!
Then ask, "So why didn't you call obstruction?" Stand back and wait for an answer.
If the umpire says anything about "there must be contact" or that the catcher was "about to receive the ball", listen to his answer then when he is finished, the first words out of your mouth should be....
"I'd like to file a protest".
You are no longer protesting a judgement call. The umpire has confirmed his judgement for you (since you asked the right questions!) and you are now protesting a misapplication of the rules.
As the protest is logged, be sure that it is clearly recorded that the umpire confirmed your runner was impeded and that the fielder did not possess the ball. These two points are the key to having your protest upheld.
Now, just cross your fingers and hope that whoever is reviewing the protest has some idea of the proper rule and its application! If they do, this is a 100% winnable protest. That's the tricky part, but the odds should be in your favor.
Then again, all your well-laid groundwork could be crushed by a tournamnent director that has no clue on the proper rule. That happened to me this past weekend when a TD overruled a call I made regarding base awards. The TD was clearly wrong, but their word was final.
These tyes of calls can be successfully protested, if you follow ask the right questions and word your protest correctly.
If an umpire is actually telling you this in your games ("no contact, no obstruction"
you have my sympathy, for you have ill-informed umpires.Obstruction does not require contact. But there is another element required for an obstruction call that may or may not have happened on your play.
To have obstruction, you must have two things:
1) a fielder not in possession of the ball.
2) a runner that is actually impeded.
Absent either one of these elements, you cannot have obstruction.
Blocking the base alone and in itself is not enough for obstruction.
An "impeded" runner is one that alters her path to the base, slows down, tries to go around, slides and makes contact with the fielder or is otherwise prevented from taking the route to the base of her choosing by a fielder not in possession of the ball.
What can a coach do if he feels his runner has been obstructed? Here is the approach I would take. When I wa coaching a few years ago, I actually had a "no obstruction" call reversed this way.
Calmly request time. When granted, calmly approach the umpire and maintain a level, non-aggresive tone. (This is a good start whenever you need to talk to the umpire).
Start off with, "I have a question about that play. Did you see my runner (fill in the blank: slow down, change directions, slide into and make contact, go around...whichever fits the play)?"
If the answer is "no", you're pretty much shot down right there! In the umpire's judgement the runner was not impeded.
If "yes"...
Next ask, "When my runner (slowed, altered, etc.) did the catcher have possession of the ball?"
If "yes", again you might as well stop right there. In the umpire's judgement the catcher had the ball.
If "no"...
Restate what you have now confirmed. For instance, you could say, "So my runner was impeded and the fielder did not have possession of the ball. Is that what you've just told me?".
Unless the umpire changes his tune mid-stream, that is exactly what he has just told you. Hopefully, you can get a "yes" to that one!
Then ask, "So why didn't you call obstruction?" Stand back and wait for an answer.
If the umpire says anything about "there must be contact" or that the catcher was "about to receive the ball", listen to his answer then when he is finished, the first words out of your mouth should be....
"I'd like to file a protest".
You are no longer protesting a judgement call. The umpire has confirmed his judgement for you (since you asked the right questions!) and you are now protesting a misapplication of the rules.
As the protest is logged, be sure that it is clearly recorded that the umpire confirmed your runner was impeded and that the fielder did not possess the ball. These two points are the key to having your protest upheld.
Now, just cross your fingers and hope that whoever is reviewing the protest has some idea of the proper rule and its application! If they do, this is a 100% winnable protest. That's the tricky part, but the odds should be in your favor.
Then again, all your well-laid groundwork could be crushed by a tournamnent director that has no clue on the proper rule. That happened to me this past weekend when a TD overruled a call I made regarding base awards. The TD was clearly wrong, but their word was final.
These tyes of calls can be successfully protested, if you follow ask the right questions and word your protest correctly.
default
Member
Some good posts here. I agree 100% with LEWRED14's post. If all umpires understood and applied the obstruction rule as bretman does, things would be fine. But after 25 high school games and another 70 or so summer games, it's clear to me that very few umpires have the guts to call obstruction on the catcher (let alone regular obstruction that occurs all the time at first base when a runner is rounding the base and the base umpire ALWAYS forgets to watch). We saw obstruction called on the catcher three times at the Colorado Fireworks, but then we were dealing with some of the top umpires in the country and it showed. They weren't afraid to make a call and a girl standing on first or second base got called for obstruction every time.
Softball_4_life's post on July 15 was one of the best posts I've ever seen from a player. It was well-written, logical and asked excellent questions. She wondered some of the same things I always wonder, among those why so many girls see from 20 feet away they are going to be tagged out and insist upon walking right into the out instead of getting into a rundown or trying to go back a base. Her point about how does an umpire determine malicious contact was also excellent. It has been my experience over and over that umpires are WAY too quick to assume that any contact is malicious contact. What I often see is a runner coming home and a catcher moving to catch a throw 10-12 feet up the third base line, and then there is a collision as the ball and runner arrive about the same time. Even though this is usually incidental contact, umpires seem to always blame the runner, even though she can't be expected to slide from that far out.
The new obstruction rule is well-intended, but can't be effective if umpires refuse to call it. If it won't get called, there is only one way to get catchers from blocking the entire plate, and that is to let runners blast them if they're blocking the plate.
Before all of the self-righteous crowd gets started, forget about what sounds good for a minute and think only about results. I say it's possible that we'd get far fewer collisions and injuries if the rules allowed runners to knock down any catcher blocking or sitting on home plate. What do you think coaches would teach catchers if they knew the catchers were subject to getting blasted if they blocked the plate? I submit that we would see catchers taking throws in front of home plate and swipe tagging while giving the runner the plate.
To me, it's simply unfair to runners to allow a defensive player to totally block a base or the plate, even with the ball, and not allow the runners to use some sort of physical force to reach the base or plate. Where the notion of allowing one to completely block home plate and not allowing the runner to do anything about it ever came into play, I have no idea. That's not any type of ball I ever played or knew. For some reason, in girls' softball we put the onus on the runner to avoid collisions when it is the defensive player who is making the decision to block the base or plate.
Softball_4_life's post on July 15 was one of the best posts I've ever seen from a player. It was well-written, logical and asked excellent questions. She wondered some of the same things I always wonder, among those why so many girls see from 20 feet away they are going to be tagged out and insist upon walking right into the out instead of getting into a rundown or trying to go back a base. Her point about how does an umpire determine malicious contact was also excellent. It has been my experience over and over that umpires are WAY too quick to assume that any contact is malicious contact. What I often see is a runner coming home and a catcher moving to catch a throw 10-12 feet up the third base line, and then there is a collision as the ball and runner arrive about the same time. Even though this is usually incidental contact, umpires seem to always blame the runner, even though she can't be expected to slide from that far out.
The new obstruction rule is well-intended, but can't be effective if umpires refuse to call it. If it won't get called, there is only one way to get catchers from blocking the entire plate, and that is to let runners blast them if they're blocking the plate.
Before all of the self-righteous crowd gets started, forget about what sounds good for a minute and think only about results. I say it's possible that we'd get far fewer collisions and injuries if the rules allowed runners to knock down any catcher blocking or sitting on home plate. What do you think coaches would teach catchers if they knew the catchers were subject to getting blasted if they blocked the plate? I submit that we would see catchers taking throws in front of home plate and swipe tagging while giving the runner the plate.
To me, it's simply unfair to runners to allow a defensive player to totally block a base or the plate, even with the ball, and not allow the runners to use some sort of physical force to reach the base or plate. Where the notion of allowing one to completely block home plate and not allowing the runner to do anything about it ever came into play, I have no idea. That's not any type of ball I ever played or knew. For some reason, in girls' softball we put the onus on the runner to avoid collisions when it is the defensive player who is making the decision to block the base or plate.
default
Member
Very well put Joe!!!
default
Member
Bretman,
I have umpired for years as well as being a coach, I understand the calm approach and what to ask. Unfortunately, all too often you get the no answer when you ask the umpire if he saw something. The reason is that he was too busy watching the ball and not the play.
Here is another one I had involving the same answer (no contact - no foul) with interference. My 2nd baseman is going after a pop up that is going to land in the base line. The runner on 1st base takes off on contact, realizes it is in the air and for some reason (i do not think it was intentional) stops in the base line. You guessed it, right where the ball was coming down. My 2B in an attempt to avoid crashing into the runner tries to go around her and cant get to the ball before it hits the ground. I ask for interference on the runner and I get ------------------------ no contact - no foul. So I tell my fielder that she has to go thru the runner next time and he tells me that if she does that she will be ejected for initiating malicious contact. ??? ??? ??? ???
I have umpired for years as well as being a coach, I understand the calm approach and what to ask. Unfortunately, all too often you get the no answer when you ask the umpire if he saw something. The reason is that he was too busy watching the ball and not the play.
Here is another one I had involving the same answer (no contact - no foul) with interference. My 2nd baseman is going after a pop up that is going to land in the base line. The runner on 1st base takes off on contact, realizes it is in the air and for some reason (i do not think it was intentional) stops in the base line. You guessed it, right where the ball was coming down. My 2B in an attempt to avoid crashing into the runner tries to go around her and cant get to the ball before it hits the ground. I ask for interference on the runner and I get ------------------------ no contact - no foul. So I tell my fielder that she has to go thru the runner next time and he tells me that if she does that she will be ejected for initiating malicious contact. ??? ??? ??? ???
default
Member
LEWRED: Right again. We had a very similar play a couple of weeks ago in Toledo. I had both umpires telling me there has to be contact. And then when I explained to them the definintion of interference, which specifically states that "no contact is necessary", they got mad and said they didn't want to hear anything about the rulebook. To protest that situation isn't likely to work, because the umpires won't later admit that the runner impeded or hindered the fielder.
default
Member
Yes, I totally agree that runners should be able to blast into the catcher. If it finishes her career, so what. Scoring the run is more important.
Signed,
Pete Rose ;D
Signed,
Pete Rose ;D
default
Member
Ray Flossie never blocked the plate again without the ball, did he?? While I dont wish that on anybody, at least the MLB rule allows the runner an option. The ASA rule is supposed to give the runner an option, but until umpires call it (kind of like the leap/crow hop rule) nothing will change.
default
Member
another good point bretman. The lake erie waves organization
coaches all play with the "score that run" attitude no matter
what!
coaches all play with the "score that run" attitude no matter
what!
default
Member
travelsec,
That would be a good argument if you listed some facts behind it. But since I have not had one girl "charge into a catcher" because that is not what I teach them, then I guess you have no facts to back up your argument.
If you read what was written above, you will see that I agree with the rule, only wish it was enforced. And until it is, everyone is going to be confused over what is "legal" as it will change from game to game depending on the umpire.
That would be a good argument if you listed some facts behind it. But since I have not had one girl "charge into a catcher" because that is not what I teach them, then I guess you have no facts to back up your argument.
If you read what was written above, you will see that I agree with the rule, only wish it was enforced. And until it is, everyone is going to be confused over what is "legal" as it will change from game to game depending on the umpire.
default
Member
my response had nothing to do with charging a catcher,
just an observation on scoring runs, and just my opinion.
just an observation on scoring runs, and just my opinion.
default
Member
it also had nothing to do with your age group.
default
Member
Of course, no runner could blast a catcher who doesn't make the choice to block home plate. We could take all risk out of the game very easily; simply don't play softball. Someone might get hurt and we can't have that under any circumstances.
default
Member
quite true if no one played softball then there would be no softball injuries, ?however the subject is playing within ?the rules. ? playing within the context of the rules is difficult when the umpires do not make the call in a consistent fashion. ? the rule appears to be clear, ?catchers don't block the plate and runners avoid contact there is no reason for either. ? and remember the person charging the catcher has to step into the batters box sometime.
default
Member
jerry: Good points. It all starts with umpires calling the game by whichever rules are set down. If umpires refuse to do that, then coaches and players are forced to make difficult decisions. Either wave the white flag and make sure no one gets hurt (yet hurt your team), or equally disobey the rules and not put your team at a disadvantage. Neither option is ideal.
