EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: scottflodin; 25 anonymousDetails for 1jonsey
Real name:
Location:
atlanta, GA
Division:
Messages posted by 1jonsey »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| April 19, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: IS IT A CATCH i agree with you guys, but if you read the last sentence of the rule it says An ILLEGALLY CAUGHT BALL occurs when a fielder catches a batted or thrown ball with anything other than his hand(s) or glove in its proper place. does that mean no more belly catches?? i thought the rule used to give an explanation about trap and control? |
| April 18, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: IS IT A CATCH last weekend i was watching a game, an outfielder came running in on a short fly ball he slid under the ball and actually caught the ball cradled in his stomach and arms then reached over and secured the ball with his bare hand. I remarked nice catch, next to me was an umpire who was on a break and he responded actually it was a nice play but if a manager wanted to argue the call it was an illegal catch, since the ball was trapped and not actually caught with the glove of bare hand so i checked the rule, when did this change? you used to be able to catch a ball with your belly and as long as you showed control of ball after it was ruled a catch. here is new rule RULE 1.10 • CATCH A catch is a legally caught ball that occurs when the fielder catches a batted or thrown ball with his hand(s) or glove and the resulting release of the ball must be voluntary. NOTE: It is not a catch if a fielder, after he contacts the ball, collides with another player, umpire or a fence, or falls to the ground and loses possession of the ball as a result of the collision or falling to the ground. A ball that strikes anything other than a defensive player while it is in flight, is ruled the same as if it struck the ground. An illegally caught ball occurs when a fielder catches a batted or thrown ball with anything other than his hand(s) or glove in its proper place. |
| April 1, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION Nancy, i appreciate what you are saying and do agree that many players have no idea of the rules. I think the point Garocket and i are trying to make is that there used to be a rule in place if you go back and read i believe the 2010 rule book it left the umpire with the judgementon where to put a runner, and that is where it should be, on the field. The rule now since 2011-12 rulebook change rewards a player for dumb base running. Read O/P on scenario. Senior Softball does make mistakes on rule changes last year they changed Rule 8.3 H I even discused this with UIC's at tournaments and they agreed rule did not make sense....a few months later a notice came out it was a "TYPO". Go back and check your old rule books and see. Again sometimes changes are not thought out well in all scenarios and sometimes the players DO know the rules 1jonsey |
| March 31, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION Garocket u r right i went back a couple years in old rule books and this rule was re-written in 2011-12 it didnt use to be this way it used to say umpire judgement |
| March 28, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION STAFF thx for your responses and explanations and you are right i would have absolutley no problem awarding B/R 2nd base but it was already occupied. Thx again for your responses 1jonsey |
| March 28, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION STAFF I understand awarding the obstructed runner the base he was GOING TO (1st base)but awarding him 2nd base? and you make the exact point that I'm arguing...quoting you... The defense should not be rewarded for their obstruction by depriving the runner from advancing where(s)"HE MIGHT HAVE REACHED ABSENT THE INFRACTION" there is no way the runner could have reached 2nd (it was occupied)and he was headed back to 1st base. Yes he could have gotten back to 1st base but was obstructed. This should be as it was in the past UMPIRE JUDGEMENT the rule now takes that away in a "RUN DOWN" I cant believe an umpire in any type of judgement would award the runner 2nd. Thx 1jonsey |
| March 28, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION Garocket...I agree with you but read the rule part A 1 EXCEPTION: A base runner obstructed in a RUN DOWN shall be awarded the lead base at the time of the obstruction. Any proceeding runners forced to advance by the award of bases for obstruction shall advance without liability to be put out. This takes the judgement out of the umpires hands and says the runner shall be awarded the lead base for dumb base running???? |
| March 26, 2014 1jonsey | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: OBSTRUCTION STAFF...this happened in our game... runner on 1st...batter/runner, running with his head down heading into 2nd base where runner from 1st is standing. B/R retreats back to 1st and gets in a run down. After going back and forth a couple times he again retreats toward 1st base and is obstructed by the 1st baseman who does not have the ball...base umpire called and signaled obstruction and runner was tagged with ball in glove. The base umpire called runner safe then awarded batter runner 2nd base and runner on 2nd advanced to 3rd. After the game the umpire was questioned again and he showed us RULE 8.4(10) A1 EXCEPTION: A base runner obstructed in a run down shall be awarded the lead base at the time of the obstruction. Any proceeding runners forced to advance by the award of bases for obstruction shall advance without liability to be put out. My question is wouldnt the "LEAD BASE" be considered 1st base because that is the way he was headed when obstructed and tagged? or doesnt it matter? Seems B/R was rewarded an extra base for boneheaded running. thx in advance for your help |
