What's your call on this play??

[default]

IMO, not sure what LL says. If in my judgement the runner didn't run to second intentionally trying to draw a throw then there would be no call. If you call it interference then some one has to be out for the interference. I don't agree with the ruling they made. Either there was interfernce and the runner at 3rd is out or there is no interference. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

JMHO

 

[default]

They also spoke about this afterward and the 1st base ump did not actually say "out" just motioned it. Therefore he took the blame that no one probably new the girl was out at first. Not even the girl running from third to home. I think that it was a great decision by the umps.

I have 2 pennies so here goes. Maybe, just maybe during the meeting the 1st base umpire told the rest of the crew that he was partially responsible for the consufion about whether the batter-runner was out. So, to be fair to both teams, they put the one runner back on 3rd base. We have an umpire saying that he might have done an unjustice to the teams and this is the best way to fix it.

Now, if he would have yelled "OUT" and motioned "OUT", and the girl still goes to 2nd base, then I say go with the rulebook.

 

[default]

I have 2 pennies so here goes. Maybe, just maybe during the meeting the 1st base umpire told the rest of the crew that he was partially responsible for the consufion about whether the batter-runner was out. So, to be fair to both teams, they put the one runner back on 3rd base. We have an umpire saying that he might have done an unjustice to the teams and this is the best way to fix it.

Now, if he would have yelled "OUT" and motioned "OUT", and the girl still goes to 2nd base, then I say go with the rulebook.

I would have to say you might be right.

 

[default]

I do not think that a runner continuing should be interference in that case. If a catcher drops a third stike and the batter runs even though they are not eligble to do so with base occupied and less than 2 outs, the catcher overthows 1st and everybody goes running wouldnt that be the same.Umpires will say you should know the runner is out. Well in that case if the batter was expected to know she was out would not the entire defense be expected to know she was out and it is their fault they threw to the runner that continued becasue they should know she is out.

 

[default]

In USSSA, you got the "God Rule".. I call it. If my confusion as an umpire confused the situation.. I CAN go to Rule 10 and just put the runner back on third ( This being the runner who started at 2nd when the play began)

But, Bretman is right... if I didn't cause the confusion because of my lack of umpire skills.. and the runner runs to second to draw the thrown.. THE CLOSEST RUNNER TO HOME IS OUT !!!! Someone is out for interference !!!

But, LL rules are diffrent maybe. Have no idea and the umpire could have admitted he caused te confusuion in the meeting of umpires.. and thus out of "fairness" put the runner (who started on 2nd) back on third base....

Other than that.. in the other scenerio.. of the drop third strike when first is occupied... that's a whole new ballgame.. and new set of rules and Bretman's explination is right there.

Weird how one rules can be affected BASED on what scenerio.

 

[default]

Just a FYI. One of the NFHS rule changes for high school softball this year removes the intent of the player continuing to run after they are out:

"Another rules change this year is to the interference rule (8-6-18), addressing a
runner who has scored or been retired. The word “intentionally” has been removed
from the rule, thus taking a player’s intent out of the ruling. The rules committee
believes the change will make the rule easier to apply and more consistent with other
rules.
“It’s nearly impossible for an umpire to know a player’s intent,” Struckhoff said.
“Players sometimes get confused but if interference occurs, intentional or not, a
penalty will apply.”
The rule now reads: “…After being declared out or after scoring, a runner
interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A
runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of
interference…”

 

[default]

Does it leave room for a umpire's screw up? As from reading the threads this past spring... there was a lot of umpire screw ups on rules and also making their own rules to fit the occassion... :lmao::lmao:

 

[default]

Just a FYI. One of the NFHS rule changes for high school softball this year removes the intent of the player continuing to run after they are out...

In this respect, NFHS followed the same rule change that ASA made back in 2007.

Does it leave room for a umpire's screw up?

NFHS has the same rule that gives umpires the right to rectify any confusion caused by their call, just like ASA and USSSA does.

On the Little League play: If what they came up with was intended to remedy the "weak" out call at first base, that's pretty sad. You would think that an umpire at the national championship level would be able to clearly execute the most basic signal a base umpire has to make.