Softball Addendum

Almost forgot about this - last night, ground ball to the short stop with a runner on first. The runner, Jolene, is not exactly a fan of the hustle, and as the SS ran over to step on second, she just stopped, about eight feet from first base. So she was directly between the SS and the 1b, actually doing quite a nice job screening the 1b. None of this was relevant as the batter did a reasonable job of hustling down the line and would have beaten the throw regardless. But when the SS's throw went sailing over the 1b, he immediately turns to the ump and starts screaming that she has to get out of the way, what is he supposed to do, hit her in the face? I was coaching 3b at the time and just asked "why should she have to get out of the way? She's in the baseline. There's no rule about relinquishing the basepath once you're out." He replies, "So you want me to hit her in the face? Okay, next time I will."

That's pretty violent and sorta a stupid thing to yell out loud on a field, but that's not what I found interesting. It's more that his reaction to her stopping five feet from the base and standing there was one of "this is out of the ordinary, and therefore must be illegal." My reaction to it was much more that there is a consistent set of rules within baseball/softball that can't possibly anticipate EVERY behavior, so you need to consider the behavior as it relates to more typical examples. Someone running from first to second in a normal situation might try to break up a double play by sliding into the SS. If they do so by going out of the baseline, they can be ruled out for interference, but if they stay in the baseline, even though they are out the moment the SS steps on the bag with the ball, they are still playing and still have every right to be in the baseline. It is the SS's responsibility to get around them if they want to throw to 1b. SO in last night's situation, likewise, though it's strange that she chose to stop running immediately, she still has no requirement to evacuate the baseline; he needs to move out to get an angle to the bag. It's actually an interesting strategy on her part - note that she wasn't "playing goalie," she wasn't actively trying to block the ball, she was just standing there.

Anyways, I found it interesting as a study in what people understand to be the nature of rules. I'm clearly more interested (and rightly so, I think) in a consistency within the rules, so you don't have arbitrary decisions about x or y being "not fair" on the ill-defined basis of being abnormal. The SS last night - though in some respects just wanted any situation which would have given him a better chance at turning two - reacted to a weird event with a visceral "that ain't right." I don't really think you can govern that way; I suppose you could add a rule that says the runner "must make an honest effort to get to the next forced base on a ground ball," but then there are other situations in which it is a generally accepted strategy for the runner to stop running in order to hinder a double play (e.g., on a grounder to second where the runner would inevitably be tagged, he may choose to stay put so as to force the throw to second and hopefully delay the relay enough to prevent the double play). Regardless, that would have to be a "known rule" beforehand, not something you shout about midgame because you're surprised.

Inconsistency in rules, though, in other contexts appears to bother no one. The boundary rules of football have always driven me nuts - in certain respects, the field boundaries pertain to the ball, in others, to the player's body, and sometimes, to multiple parts of his body (see "two feet in" rule for receivers in the NFL). Ultimate is much more consistent in this respect as on a caught disc, it is always the first point of contact that matters, not "where the disc is."

In other news, grumble grumble, get off my lawn.