From another board

[IRISHMAFIA]

There is nothing wrong speaking along the lines of "the player was doing what the player is supposed to do". No one is stating that should be the basis of one's ruling, but certainly should be taken into consideration when determining whether the actions caused interference. As previously noted, part of what the player "is supposed to do" is avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play when dictated by the rules.

Often the difference between interference and a no call is the changing of the circumstances which is where "doing what s/he is supposed to be doing" is a consideration.

Since day one of the change in the rules concerning INT, the simple example that has been offered involves a runner advancing toward 2B on a ground ball to an infielder. The scenarios involved that player being retired on a force @ 2B and getting hit with the relay to 1B. Working with the assumption that the defense had a valid opportunity to put out the BR @ 1B.

If the runner was simply proceeding to 2B when being hit WITHOUT any additional antics, it is nothing, but a poor selection of where to throw the ball by the defender.

If the runner fell to the ground prior to the defender making the relay throw and then rises to his/her feet and gets hit with the throw, now you have INT.

The difference is that the circumstances changed in the second event. In the first, the defender can see the retired runner and should select a, and I hate using this term, throwing lane that would not involve any action by the retired runner. In the latter situation, the defender sees a clear path to throw the ball, but the retired runner, doing what s/he is supposed to do (avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play), should have stayed down. By moving into what was a clear path to throw the ball is an act of interference. That act changed the circumstances of the play in front of the teams and umpire.

It would be no different than a retired runner moving out of the already determined base path and into a throwing lane the fielder has chosen to make his/her throw to 1B.

A couple of you are probably tired of hearing this, but every year, one or two of this type of thread pops up which demonstrates the concern I voiced when ASA chose to change their wording on the INT rules. People avoided me in Colorado Springs because they knew my agenda that year and with the exception of a couple of NUS members who agreed with my concern, no one wanted to buck the movement.

However, every year you have calls like this one where an umpire took it upon himself to interpret the rule in a manner it was not intended to be interpreted. Of course, with the NCAA's recent demonstrations that target practice is an acceptable act by the defense to get a free out, I can see how people may believe it is true in all games even though clinical evidence may indicate otherwise.

[shagpal]

if he can't control his gawking, pretending to perform his duties that he should be performing anyways is one way to detract attention. I think everyone picked up on this dumfounded gawking, even someone as simple as you.

its about surviving in a modern age of instant internet media.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why should he "pretend" anything? And why would he respond to anything anyone has to say about a call that he didn't make?

You've some imagination, but you might want to leave that in your equipment bag.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

if he can't control his gawking, pretending to perform his duties that he should be performing anyways is one way to detract attention. I think everyone picked up on this dumfounded gawking, even someone as simple as you.

I'm not stupid enough or an umpire that weak that needs to make up things to justify nonsense.

In my trained observation, the umpire was doing what he was supposed to be doing, watching the play. Was he dumbfounded? I know that I would probably be dumbfounded if I witnessed something like that. Maybe he was, but unless you were on the field with him, you don't know that. Were you on the field with him?

[shagpal]

are you stupid enuff?

nothing to make up. he was gawking. not a terrible thing, but not a good thing. but, you don't know because you were trained.

would it help him to make something up? you said he looked dumbfounded. but you aren't sure now because your not trained.

at least your training says he's in the right spot, thats was a tough one to spot, so we can now all agree.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm not stupid enough or an umpire that weak that needs to make up things to justify nonsense.

In my trained observation, the umpire was doing what he was supposed to be doing, watching the play. Was he dumbfounded? I know that I would probably be dumbfounded if I witnessed something like that. Maybe he was, but unless you were on the field with him, you don't know that. Were you on the field with him?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You've completely dodged the question I asked you. If you are on the field and partner makes a rules error - do you do nothing, or do you fix it?

Am I wrong, or are we still waiting for an answer here?

[shagpal]

LOL! do you need closure?

Two UICs agree that this is a JUDGEMENT call. Read the whole thread, and see Irish flip out about "act" before the state UIC has to ride in white knight.

WARREN - HUNTERDON - WEST MORRIS ASA - (Flemington, NJ) - powered by LeagueLineup.com

Originally Posted by Manny A

Am I wrong, or are we still waiting for an answer here?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by shagpal

LOL! do you need closure?

Two UICs agree that this is a JUDGEMENT call. Read the whole thread, and see Irish flip out about "act" before the state UIC has to ride in white knight.

WARREN - HUNTERDON - WEST MORRIS ASA - (Flemington, NJ) - powered by LeagueLineup.com

The question being asked has NOTHING to do with the original play. It has to do with the general subject of getting with your partner immediately after he/she boots a call involving a rule misinterpretation. Mike even offered you an example--your partner makes an IFF call with two outs--to get your take on the situation.

The impression I get from your continual dodging of the question is that you would let it go until the post-game discussion.

But since you insist on going back to the original play, let's say you're the PU, and you overhear your partner tell the base coach that the reason he called the runner going back to first base out was because the rules require a batter to run in fair territory on any batted ball that is caught in foul territory. Are you going to let that go?

[shagpal]

I'm not insisting anything. That would be you. But I will entertain it to calm your nerves.

what difference does it make if I am PU or BU? who is the conversation directed? is the partner having a private with the coach, or did the partner make it obvious to everyone already?

Originally Posted by Manny A

But since you insist on going back to the original play, let's say you're the PU, and you overhear your partner tell the base coach that the reason he called the runner going back to first base out was because the rules require a batter to run in fair territory on any batted ball that is caught in foul territory. Are you going to let that go?

[shagpal]

OK! I understand.

since this is a judgement call, I thought it was a basic and obvious answer that did not need expounding.

are you confusing misinterpretation with misapplication?

Since you are asking me personally, I would never intitate any questioning of partners judgment call. I would not disagree or convey doubt on any way even if I think my patner misinterpreted a rule unless asked. I would conference for rules I think that are misapplied or verbalized showing misapplication of a rule.

I would discuss in postgame. and all this is just me, I am not telling anyone else ehat they should or should not do.

Originally Posted by Manny A

The question being asked has NOTHING to do with the original play. It has to do with the general subject of getting with your partner immediately after he/she boots a call involving a rule misinterpretation. Mike even offered you an example--your partner makes an IFF call with two outs--to get your take on the situation.

The impression I get from your continual dodging of the question is that you would let it go until the post-game discussion.

[MD Longhorn]

Not to kill this overly dead horse...

The reason for my question, and for Manny's attempt at clarification, is that contrary to your insistence that this can only be a judgement call on BU's part, I think it's extremely clear (to me at least) that there is both judgement and rules interpretation in play here.

If you disagree, then fine. And if PU disagrees - and thinks this mistake HAS to be simply horrid judgement on his partner's part - then I agree with you that he should let it lie.

My point was, however, that I find it MUCH MUCH more likely that BU made this call because he misunderstands the interference rule wrt retired runners.

[shagpal]

and what makes you so certain that this is a misapplication, or/vs misinterpretation. are you so sure your judgement is superior?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not to kill this overly dead horse...

The reason for my question, and for Manny's attempt at clarification, is that contrary to your insistence that this can only be a judgement call on BU's part, I think it's extremely clear (to me at least) that there is both judgement and rules interpretation in play here.

If you disagree, then fine. And if PU disagrees - and thinks this mistake HAS to be simply horrid judgement on his partner's part - then I agree with you that he should let it lie.

My point was, however, that I find it MUCH MUCH more likely that BU made this call because he misunderstands the interference rule wrt retired runners.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

and what makes you so certain that this is a misapplication, or/vs misinterpretation. are you so sure your judgement is superior?

Huh? The video clip. I might not have had the same surety of judgement real time, on the field. But when you have the luxury of video - seems to me this is rather clear.

I assumed from the get-go that you (like just about everyone else here) could agree, from the video, that interference is the wrong call. That's not personal superiority of judgement on my part at all.

"Not Inferference" on this video is as clear as "Not Safe" is on the Jim Joyce video. If watching a video of the Jim Joyce play makes me claim the runner was out - would you say I was insisting my judgement was superior?

[shagpal]

"huh?" if you had "feelings", you are not sure. you even said so.

so I will ask you again. are you the one that is going to try to change your partners mind on this call?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Huh? The video clip. I might not have had the same surety of judgement real time, on the field. But when you have the luxury of video - seems to me this is rather clear.

I assumed from the get-go that you (like just about everyone else here) could agree, from the video, that interference is the wrong call. That's not personal superiority of judgement on my part at all.

"Not Inferference" on this video is as clear as "Not Safe" is on the Jim Joyce video. If watching a video of the Jim Joyce play makes me claim the runner was out - would you say I was insisting my judgement was superior?

[AtlUmpSteve]

My answer:

ASA 10.3-B. "Under no circumstances will any umpire seek to reverse a decision made by an associate, nor shall any umpire criticize or interfere with the duties of their associate(s), unless asked to do so. Similar wording exists in every other ruleset and mechanics manuals.

I may be missing the part inferred by others, but this doesn't say or differentiate between a judgment call and a rule application. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is only one right way to deal with this. Stay out of it. If a coach asks, you refer him to the umpire that made the call. Only if/when your partner asks do you suggest in live time it may have been a wrong rule application. Interfere on your own, and your interference is not only inappropriate and illegal, but any call reversal is now protestable, since YOU violated a rule seeking the reversal.

Post-game, have at it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

so I will ask you again. are you the one that is going to try to change your partners mind on this call?

You don't have to ask. This conversation started with me stating the answer to that question.

And "change my partner's mind" was not what this was about anyway.

And at this point, I've had enough.