the on deck circle

[elcoachdadsd]

Is the on deck circle considered to be in the field of play. I was under the assumption that if there was a batter in the ondeck circle that it belonged to her. If a batter hits a pop up and the fielder needs to make a play on the ball close to or in the on deck circle that does the on deck batter does not need to move. Players and comenetators from the college level have said that the on deck circle belongs to the batter on deck and that they do not need to move. My daughter had a game recently where the umpire said that she needed to move to give the fielder a chance to make the play. what is the rule to this according to ASA rules.

[MTR]

Is the on deck circle considered to be in the field of play. I was under the assumption that if there was a batter in the ondeck circle that it belonged to her. If a batter hits a pop up and the fielder needs to make a play on the ball close to or in the on deck circle that does the on deck batter does not need to move. Players and comenetators from the college level have said that the on deck circle belongs to the batter on deck and that they do not need to move. My daughter had a game recently where the umpire said that she needed to move to give the fielder a chance to make the play. what is the rule to this according to ASA rules.

The ODC is part of the field. Though it is a designated area for the ODB, it is not a sanctuary or haven. If a play is coming in that direction, it is the ODB responsibilty to vacate the area along with insuring there is no loose equipment is left in the area.

[Comp]

Its amazing how often the commentators are wrong about even the most basic of rules. For the most part dont listen to anything they have to say when it comes to rule interpretations.

If you were watching the game I am thinking of, the comment about the ODC was made by Michelle Smith. There was a pop up over foul territory by the 1st base ODC and the ODB was trying to get out of the way of the catcher. Smith made some comment along the lines of, why did she do that? She owns that circle and doesnt have to move from it.

[UmpSteve]

Or don't get out of the way. The interference call is easy to make, even if it was a difficult play, possibly easier than forcing the defensive player to actually make the catch. And the resulting dead ball will even keep your runners from tagging and advancing.

Sarcasm aside, no member of the offensive team owns any spot on the field that interferes with the defense's opportunity to make a play. The closest to that is that a runner doesn't need to step off a base; but batters cannot stay in the batters box and interfere with a play at the plate, coaches and on-deck batters have to allow the defense whatever space the defense needs, etc.

I am pretty sure I would believe Tim McCarver on baseball rules (and he truly sucks) before I would believe ANY of the softball commentators. Players almost never know the actual rules, just how to play the game.

[WildRoseCoach]

[quote="Comp"]Its amazing how often the commentators are wrong about even the most basic of rules. For the most part dont listen to anything they have to say when it comes to rule interpretations.

If you were watching the game I am thinking of, the comment about the ODC was made by Michelle Smith. There was a pop up over foul territory by the 1st base ODC and the ODB was trying to get out of the way of the catcher. Smith made some comment along the lines of, why did she do that? She owns that circle and doesnt have to move from it.[/quote]

This drives me crazy. How can you play a game that long and don't know the rules. I have a mom that "played" college softball and she has asked me several questions regarding rules that I have had to shake my head at.

[Bretman]

This drives me crazy. How can you play a game that long and don't know the rules. I have a mom that "played" college softball and she has asked me several questions regarding rules that I have had to shake my head at.

You have to admit that players do know some of the rules- the basic ones that come up over and over again. It's the ones that rarely come up, for unusual plays that a player may have never seen in her career, or that are more nuanced that usually cause a problem.

For the most part, players don't really need an indepth knowledge of the rules. They hit the ball, they throw the ball, they catch the ball and they're pretty much going to do whatever it is they do no matter what the rule is.

It has been said that 90% of the game is played using only 10% of the rules. Ball/strike, fair/foul and safe/out are pretty basic. We see applications of those rules a hundred times every game, yet they encompass only a small percentage of the entire rule book. There's a lot in there that players don't really need to know, so I can't really fault them for not knowing it.

At least your mom is asking questions about stuff she doesn't understand. Good for her! That's entirely different than a talking head on national television passing themselves off as an "expert" just because they played the game.

This kind of reminds me of a conversation I had earlier this year with a well-respected pitch coach. This gentleman has been around the game of fastpitch for over 40 years and pitched at some of the highest levels back in the day. He had hired me to umpire a tournament for him. After it was over, he decided that he would critique my umpiring and was getting into everything from rule interpretations to umpire mechanics to game management. He was insisiting that he had it right and I had it wrong on several points, based on the fact that he's been around the game for so long.

Finally, I asked him how many games he had umpired in his long career. His answer was "none".

So I told him, "That's exactly the same number of games I've pitched in my career. And you know what? I would never presume to tell you that I know more about pitching than you do!".

[MTR]

You have to admit that players do know some of the rules- the basic ones that come up over and over again. It's the ones that rarely come up, for unusual plays that a player may have never seen in her career, or that are more nuanced that usually cause a problem.

For the most part, players don't really need an indepth knowledge of the rules. They hit the ball, they throw the ball, they catch the ball and they're pretty much going to do whatever it is they do no matter what the rule is.

Reminds me of the time Davey Johnson (Mets Mgr) moved Jesse Orosco to RF for one batter against the Reds. When he requested time and indicated that Orosco was going back into the pitching position, Pete Rose argued it vehemently stating that the rules don't allow it.

The idiot TH doing the game agreed with Rose as the camera showed Rose and his staff frantically pouring through a rule book (in a loose-leaf format). As an umpire, I thought it was hilarious. I'm sure Davey Johnson had a good laugh at Rose's expense, I know the umpires probably did.

[Bretman]

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Being here in the heart of Reds country (well, it's Reds country when the Reds are winning, but Indians country when the Tribe is winning!) I can distinctly remember watching this game on TV.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes ... 7220.shtml

[UmpSteve]

You have to admit that players do know some of the rules- the basic ones that come up over and over again. It's the ones that rarely come up, for unusual plays that a player may have never seen in her career, or that are more nuanced that usually cause a problem.

For the most part, players don't really need an indepth knowledge of the rules. They hit the ball, they throw the ball, they catch the ball and they're pretty much going to do whatever it is they do no matter what the rule is.

Reminds me of the time Davey Johnson (Mets Mgr) moved Jesse Orosco to RF for one batter against the Reds. When he requested time and indicated that Orosco was going back into the pitching position, Pete Rose argued it vehemently stating that the rules don't allow it.

The idiot TH doing the game agreed with Rose as the camera showed Rose and his staff frantically pouring through a rule book (in a loose-leaf format). As an umpire, I thought it was hilarious. I'm sure Davey Johnson had a good laugh at Rose's expense, I know the umpires probably did.

FWIW, Gene Mauch did that same move several times in the 60's and 70's managing the Phillies. I believe Ed Roebuck and Jack Baldschun were the pitchers usually involved. I seem to recall some arguments then, too, as reported by Richie Ashburn announcing for the Phillies.

OK, guess I just aged myself.

[MTR]

FWIW, Gene Mauch did that same move several times in the 60's and 70's managing the Phillies. I believe Ed Roebuck and Jack Baldschun were the pitchers usually involved. I seem to recall some arguments then, too, as reported by Richie Ashburn announcing for the Phillies.

OK, guess I just aged myself.

Well, Mauch with the Phillies in the '60s maybe. He didn't survive the '68 season. Actually, I'm surprised he was there in '65 after blowing a trip to the series in '64 the way he did.

But Whitey had help with a couple of original THs in By Saam and Bill Campbell.