Softball

[Soonerguy06]

If we struggled against Jenz, I think we will struggle against Garcia from UCLA and prob Washington's pitchers (if either team make it to big dance).

I will be one of the optimistic ones and say that I think this group is resilient and will learn from our struggles over the weekend and grow from it, like we did in our early round loss in 2017. I say we win our super regional easier than we did this regional, and then who knows from that point on.

I think this team is as talented as we've ever seen, and could possibly be the best OU team we've ever had, with maybe exception to 2013's team, which is my personal favorite (maybe bc Ricketts is my all time favorite player). If we don't put it together this year and win again, we may not come as close again for a while. I believe this senior class is the best class we've had in many years. Let's go Sooners!!

 

[SoonerSpock]

I think our understanding of the language must indeed be different.

here shall be no appeal from any decision of any umpire

First, it doesn't apply specifically to the home plate umpire.

Secondly, it makes no sense as worded. There can be no appeal unless he is convinced he is wrong or made an error? This doesn't reference his willingness to ask questions of another umpire. It just says that he can't be reversed unless he is convince of his error. It says absolutely nothing about seeking clarity if someone requests it.

Essentially, it is a stupid statement which states that you can't change your mind if unless you think you were wrong. I don't know that it has any application whatsoever to what your website people said or anything logical.

You can't appeal unless he is convinced he is wrong? We needed a rule to state that?

The statement any umpire is all inclusive including the home plate umpire. It does not say unless he is convinced he is wrong or made an error. That is your conjured interpretation. the rule says "No decision rendered by any umpire shall be reversed; except that he be convinced it is in violation of one of these (softball) rules".

The rule is very clear no violation of a softball rule there can be no reversal nor is there a need to confer with his associates. If he thinks there may have been a rules violation he can confer. Otherwise even a wrong judgement call stands as originally called. Very clear and specific statement.

Again you have your right to your opinion even if it is wrong but the rule is going to remain as written. You and others do have the option to not like the rule for whatever reason but it is no going to change in the foreseeable future.

 

[sybarite]

That is an absurd interpretation of a poorly written rule.


All this rule says is that you can't appeal unless you are convinced (as the umpire) that you are wrong. Stupid.

It leaves no room for asking another umpire or any indecision. Let's state the absurdity as it might actually be written: you can't appeal unless I am convinced I am wrong. If I'm not convince that I am wrong, I have no reason to confer with anyone to be certain.

That is as silly as saying A is A. Of course it is. So what. It doesn't address anything else other than A is A.

What do you want them to write as an exception? If I didn't get a clear look but wish to consult to see if anyone had a better one, I am prohibited from doing so? Because A is A.

Back off of this one. This rule is pointless and simply says an umpire must issue a call that he thinks is correct. No appeal. Doesn't say a word about verification, uncertainty, or anything else.

Why do you even make a rule so stupid?

 

[SoonerSpock]

If we struggled against Jenz, I think we will struggle against Garcia from UCLA and prob Washington's pitchers (if either team make it to big dance).

I will be one of the optimistic ones and say that I think this group is resilient and will learn from our struggles over the weekend and grow from it, like we did in our early round loss in 2017. I say we win our super regional easier than we did this regional, and then who knows from that point on.

I think this team is as talented as we've ever seen, and could possibly be the best OU team we've ever had, with maybe exception to 2013's team, which is my personal favorite (maybe bc Ricketts is my all time favorite player). If we don't put it together this year and win again, we may not come as close again for a while. I believe this senior class is the best class we've had in many years. Let's go Sooners!!

Great pitching will usually beat great hitting. OU is fortunate to have both and will need both going forward. But it is for certain from the point forward the quality pitchers to be faced is going to make the 8 runs per game we averaged for the regular season a virtual thing of the past.

We still have to be the favorite to win it all. But we are going to need for everyone to contribute their part on offense, on defense, in the circle and get a few good breaks along the way. We can ill afford a bad break like the weather in 2012 taking Keilani's crop duster away from her arsenal against Bama which I think cost us another natty.

 

[Salt City Sooner]

JMU has Michigan in trouble in their decider. Not only is Good tossing a shutout through 4, she took Beaubien deep for their first run. 2-0 JMU, top of 5th.

 

[SoonerSpock]

That is an absurd interpretation of a poorly written rule.


All this rule says is that you can't appeal unless you are convinced (as the umpire) that you are wrong. Stupid.

It leaves no room for asking another umpire or any indecision. Let's state the absurdity as it might actually be written: you can't appeal unless I am convinced I am wrong. If I'm not convince that I am wrong, I have no reason to confer with anyone to be certain.

That is as silly as saying A is A. Of course it is. So what. It doesn't address anything else other than A is A.

What do you want them to write as an exception? If I didn't get a clear look but wish to consult to see if anyone had a better one, I am prohibited from doing so? Because A is A.

Back off of this one. This rule is pointless and simply says an umpire must issue a call that he thinks is correct. No appeal. Doesn't say a word about verification, uncertainty, or anything else.

Why do you even make a rule so stupid?

Obviously you can not read nor understand what is written. You repeatedly want to talk about the ump being wrong. Whether he is right or wrong in his call is not an issue. The rules says his initial call is final and cannot be reversed under any circumstance except for an appeal involving a rule violation and then only if the ump who made the call is in doubt then he may (not must) confer with his associates.

Getting the call right on a judgement call is not germaine to the issue. The initial call was final. End of discussion. The one exception is a rules violation where conferring with associates is appropriate only if the ump is in doubt. Otherwise he need not confer.

The rule is designed to provide the ultimate support of the judgement call of the ump period. Obviously rules want control of the game to rest solely with the umps. Not the players, coaches, fans or replay. I prefer and support the rule books stance but can definitely see where others could totally disagree.

 

[sybarite]

Obviously you can not read nor understand what is written. You repeatedly want to talk about the ump being wrong. Whether he is right or wrong in his call is not an issue. The rules says his initial call is final and cannot be reversed under any circumstance except for an appeal involving a rule violation then if the ump who made the call is in doubthe may (not must) confer with his associates.

Getting the call right on a judgement call is not germaine to the issue. The initial call was final. End of discussion. The one exception is a rules violation where conferring with associates is appropriate only if the ump is in doubt. Otherwise he need not confer.

The rule is designed to provide the ultimate support of the judgement call of the ump period. Obviously rules want control of the game to rest solely with the umps. Not the players, coaches, fans or replay. I prefer and support the rule books stance but can definitely see where others could totally disagree.

Exactly. It is dumb. He can't change the call unless he thinks he is wrong. That is a stupid rule. Despite all the words, it says only that. Period. Nothing more.

It absolutely makes no attempt to say what might happen if he isn't absolutely, totally, and stubbornly convinced. Don't try to make a stupid rule into sanity.

 

[Salt City Sooner]

Michigan hits a solo HR in the top of the 7th, but it’s not enough; JMU hangs on 2-1 & advances.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Exactly. It is dumb. He can't change the call unless he thinks he is wrong. That is a stupid rule. Despite all the words, it says only that. Period. Nothing more.

It absolutely makes no attempt to say what might happen if he isn't absolutely, totally, and stubbornly convinced. Don't try to make a stupid rule into sanity.

Your right to have that opinion I can support. It is your opinion that it is a stupid rule. But in this case there is no right or wrong it is a decision about how to best call the game. I concur with the rule as I like the refs/umps having the final say as part of the human element of the game. I think it makes for a better game as all of this pc mentality to make everything perfect is a mistake with the price costing more than the benefit in most cases.

Apparently consensus of the powers who write, enforce and play by the rules of baseball and softball concur as the rule has been there forever with no apparent emphasis to change it as it has functioned effectively for decades. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[j2d2]

Who were the pitchers in the earlier games against Northwestern?

 

[sybarite]

http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/472124

Northwestern site


Juarez started both games against NW. Saile relieved in the first, Mendes in the second.

Wilkey started the first for NW, and Williams started the second, lasting one inning and six batters in the second, all of whom scored in a 7-run second for OU.

 

[sybarite]

Your right to have that opinion I can support. It is your opinion that it is a stupid rule. But in this case there is no right or wrong it is a decision about how to best call the game. I concur with the rule as I like the refs/umps having the final say as part of the human element of the game. I think it makes for a better game as all of this pc mentality to make everything perfect is a mistake with the price costing more than the benefit in most cases.

Apparently consensus of the powers who write, enforce and play by the rules of baseball and softball concur as the rule has been there forever with no apparent emphasis to change it as it has functioned effectively for decades. Let us agree to disagree.

On SoonerTimes, AustinTxSooner and HumbleSooner found a clause that does explain it. Has nothing to do with the rules stated above.

[However, strikes cannot be changed to balls, dead balls cannot be revived to become live, foul balls changed to fair and illegal pitches cannot be declared legal, even in the current climate of “getting the call right” with additional information./QUOTE]

By calling it foul, he had invoked a dead ball situation, and that could not be changed.

 

[SoonerSpock]

On SoonerTimes, AustinTxSooner and HumbleSooner found a clause that does explain it. Has nothing to do with the rules stated above.

[However, strikes cannot be changed to balls, dead balls cannot be revived to become live, foul balls changed to fair and illegal pitches cannot be declared legal, even in the current climate of “getting the call right” with additional information./QUOTE]

By calling it foul, he had invoked a dead ball situation, and that could not be changed.

 

[SoonerSpock]

As the rule provided from the the NCAA Softball Rule Book stated a judgement call cannot be changed except for a rules violation. Learn to think changing a strike to a ball or a foul ball to a fair ball is changing a judgement call. Whatever documentation Sooner Times, AustinTxSooner and HumbleSooner found is merely an explanation of the rule I quoted.

I don't know what their source was but I posted this earlier in this thread and it specifically stated the highlighted notation below. The rule says no decision rendered by any umpire shall be reversed. It has nothing to do with being a dead ball or live ball. The rule is all judgemental decisions are final if there are no rule violations. Calling a batted ball foul is a judgement decision.

Don't understand what you are arguing about. Difficult to make me wrong when I am just quoting the rules and stating I support the rule as a good rule. You disagree I understand and accept that.

Sec. 6.UMPIRE'S JUDGMENT.
There shall be no appeal from any decision of any umpire, on the grounds that he was not correct in his conclusion as to whether a batted ball was fair or foul, a runner safe or out, a pitched ball a strike or ball, or on any play involving accuracy of judgment. No decision rendered by any umpire shall be reversed; except that he be convinced it is in violation of one of these rules. In case the manager, captain, or either team does seek a reversal of a decision based solely on a point of the rules, the umpire whose decision is in question shall, if in doubt, confer with his associate before taking any action. But under no circumstances shall any player or person, other than the manager or the captain of either team, have any legal right to protest on any decision and seek its reversal, on a claim that it is in conflict with these rules.

 

[bob the nailer]

2 pm on a Friday? Thanks a lot NCAA go ahead and take a big steamer on those of us who work on Friday

 

[sybarite]

As the rule provided from the the NCAA Softball Rule Book stated a judgement call cannot be changed except for a rules violation. Learn to think changing a strike to a ball or a foul ball to a fair ball is changing a judgement call. Whatever documentation Sooner Times, AustinTxSooner and HumbleSooner found is merely an explanation of the rule I quoted.

I don't know what their source was but I posted this earlier in this thread and it specifically stated the highlighted notation below. The rule says no decision rendered by any umpire shall be reversed. It has nothing to do with being a dead ball or live ball. The rule is all judgemental decisions are final if there are no rule violations. Calling a batted ball foul is a judgement decision.

Don't understand what you are arguing about. Difficult to make me wrong when I am just quoting the rules and stating I support the rule as a good rule. You disagree I understand and accept that.

Sec. 6.UMPIRE'S JUDGMENT.
There shall be no appeal from any decision of any umpire, on the grounds that he was not correct in his conclusion as to whether a batted ball was fair or foul, a runner safe or out, a pitched ball a strike or ball, or on any play involving accuracy of judgment. No decision rendered by any umpire shall be reversed; except that he be convinced it is in violation of one of these rules. In case the manager, captain, or either team does seek a reversal of a decision based solely on a point of the rules, the umpire whose decision is in question shall, if in doubt, confer with his associate before taking any action. But under no circumstances shall any player or person, other than the manager or the captain of either team, have any legal right to protest on any decision and seek its reversal, on a claim that it is in conflict with these rules.

Has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. By itself, the rule made no sense whatsoever. If you add that dead ball precursor, it becomes obvious that it is too late to appeal, look for a better view from another umpire, or whatever. In essence, it gets screwed up when the umpire renders it a dead play. His best call here would be to shut up and see if the third base umpire had a better view, thereby not stopping play. You can always overcome a completed play that you now render foul. You can't overcome a foul call that creates a dead ball.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. By itself, the rule made no sense whatsoever. If you add that dead ball precursor, it becomes obvious that it is too late to appeal, look for a better view from another umpire, or whatever. In essence, it gets screwed up when the umpire renders it a dead play. His best call here would be to shut up and see if the third base umpire had a better view, thereby not stopping play. You can always overcome a completed play that you now render foul. You can't overcome a foul call that creates a dead ball.

To the baseball/softball people that run the game the rule makes all the sense in the world. It is simple, succinct and functional. It does its job. UMP makes a judgement decision knowing the decision is final. Nothing more, nothing less unless an appeal based is on a rules violation is made and the ump also has some doubt about the rule. Otherwise no appeal.

By rule on a batted ball the HP umps must make the call between home and the corner base and the base ump makes the call after the ball passes the base. A better view by another ump is not an option. The appropriate ump rules foul or fair. Being a dead ball or a live ball has no bearing on his decision. The ump does not care that the rule makes no sense to you. He is smart enough to know his job is to enforce the rule as is clearly written and make his best decision asap. Generally making the right call is how he earned his job continuing to do so is how he keeps it.

Baseball/softball is not going to permit you to change the rule to meet the needs of your ego and logic. The rule has existed and worked for decades and will continue to do so for decades in the future.

Perhaps what you need is the last word. You have it. And just think you can now pull your head out of the sand.

 

[sybarite]

To the baseball/softball people that run the game the rule makes all the sense in the world. It is simple, succinct and functional. It does its job. UMP makes a judgement decision knowing the decision is final. Nothing more, nothing less unless an appeal based is on a rules violation is made and the ump also has some doubt about the rule. Otherwise no appeal.

By rule on a batted ball the HP umps must make the call between home and the corner base and the base ump makes the call after the ball passes the base. A better view by another ump is not an option. The appropriate ump rules foul or fair. Being a dead ball or a live ball has no bearing on his decision. The ump does not care that the rule makes no sense to you. He is smart enough to know his job is to enforce the rule as is clearly written and make his best decision asap. Generally making the right call is how he earned his job continuing to do so is how he keeps it.

Baseball/softball is not going to permit you to change the rule to meet the needs of your ego and logic. The rule has existed and worked for decades and will continue to do so for decades in the future.

Perhaps what you need is the last word. You have it. And just think you can now pull your head out of the sand.

Now, that is nonsense. You were OK.

The umpire has the alternative to make no call unless absolutely certain. Then, in such a case, if the ball were to be ruled fair by another umpire, the play would not have been rendered dead. If the ball is foul, the runners can always go back to where they were.

As stated, the rule that you cited was absurd as a stand alone rule. The implication from the web sources that you had seen appeared to be totally ignorant as such. Now, if you add the qualifier that it had been rendered a dead ball by his call, he no longer can change. The rule without a qualifier makes no sense, and appears to be against everything they are trying to accomplish with consults, etc.

With the qualifier OK. Without, no.

Don't bring basketball into it. We have actually had situations where they added points and time from a dead ball situation, phantom five and six point plays that were somehow allowed. Then, about the only thing they do when found to have made an error is they may admit the error, without changing the result.

Leave it to softball and the definition of a dead ball and the reason.

 

[skyvue]

Two words: Video review.

The ump undeniably blew the call. Even he would have to admit it after seeing a replay. So to say the rules "works" and has worked for decades is ... well, wrong. It didn't work yesterday and hasn't many hundreds, if not thousands of times over the decades. There has simply been no recourse to rectify a blown call -- that doesn't mean the rule work. Unless you care more about keeping the status quo (or, I don't know, keeping the game moving?) than ensuring that blown calls don't impact a game, there's no reason not to consider the adoption of video replay.

You could limit a head coach to calling for a replay, say, just twice a game and even limit it to postseason play, if you wish. But there were at least three blown calls that went against OU in yesterday's two games, and each of them would have readily been overturned after a video review.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Two words: Video review.

The ump undeniably blew the call. Even he would have to admit it after seeing a replay. So to say the rules "works" and has worked for decades is ... well, wrong. It didn't work yesterday and hasn't many hundreds, if not thousands of times over the decades. There has simply been no recourse to rectify a blown call -- that doesn't mean the rule work. Unless you care more about keeping the status quo (or, I don't know, keeping the game moving?) than ensuring that blown calls don't impact a game, there's no reason not to consider the adoption of video replay.

You could limit a head coach to calling for a replay, say, just twice a game and even limit it to postseason play, if you wish. But there were at least three blown calls that went against OU in yesterday's two games, and each of them would have readily been overturned after a video review.

Ah a quality logical argument.

As I stated initially I oppose video replay. I think it damages the game more than it helps the game and its use has shown multiple times that there is often disagreement even after the supposed undesputable evidence rule is applied.

Its application negatively impacts the momentum of the game all too frequently and likely alters the games outcome far more than the very infrequent bad call does. It view is a 2 dimensional view that often provides a different perspective to the human real 3 dimensional view. I feel the human element of the game is one of the real interest of the game and the human element of officiating needs to remain a part of the game.

I doubt that my position is the most popular with today's politically correct mentality that I also find a negative for our culture. But I do know the game has been played for ions with the rule as stated working not perfectly but very reliably while the supposed fix of video replay only works part of the time and in my opinion the negative disruption it causes to the game being a price far worse than the supposed cure.

You think video replay betters the game. I think the opposite. To each his own.