[WestMichBlue]

I just returned from the National Umpire School in South Bend, IN. Staff members included Kevin Ryan, Bernie Profato, Steve Rollins, and Jerry Fick. I committed the weekend and three hundred bucks to learn something new. What I did learn shocked me; and what I wasn’t learning caused me to leave at the end of day one.

1. Interference call on 3’ lane. Kevin mentioned that interference was called if the catcher was forced to alter his/her throw due to a B-R being outside the lane. I challenged him on that, stating that the 3’ lane rule did not mention the catcher, only the fielder taking the throw. He disagreed. We then broke up into drill groups and Steve Rollins spent at least 20 minutes covering the 3’ lane issue before starting the BU mechanics. Initially all his discussion centered on the B-R getting hit; and that if the part of the body hit is outside the 3’ lane that is interference. When asked for the call if the B-R was not hit, he stated it was interference if the defender altered their throw! If the catcher threw the ball over the head of the B-R and it sailed into RF – Interference. If the defender had to move aside to gain a clear throwing lane – interference! Instead of ruling strictly on 8.2.E, he was falling back on 8.2.F which rules interference when the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box. When the word “intent” was brought up, he said that the B-R belongs in the 3’ lane; if she is outside of it that is an intentional act and interference is the call.

2. Train Wrecks. During his presentation, Kevin discussed collision – interference, obstruction, or wreck. At the end of the day I asked him specifically about the new obstruction rule and the situation of an errant throw pulling the defender into the path of the runner when neither had the chance to avoid the contact. “Train wreck” he said. When I suggested that the defender didn’t have the ball and should be called for obstruction, his reply was “No, that is not the intent of the new obstruction rule!”

3. Retired Runners and Interference. Again Steve Rollins: a retired runner must clear the way for a defender to throw the ball or be charged with interference. I mentioned the word “intent.” His reply was that if the runner “intentionally” continued running in the path of the throw that he/she was guilty of interference. The runner was required to slide aside and clear the lane after they have been put out.

4. Calling balls and strikes. The proscribed method (from the 2005 ASA NUS Drill Book) being taught in this class for verbalizing these calls is to call Balls while down, and Strikes while up. The Umpire’s Manual always has, and still does say it is optional. I believe, and I teach to make both calls while down, and then stand to signal. I believe this helps your timing if you stay down longer. I have seen many umpires that are making the calls while coming up, and this causes them to rush their calls. But that is not what the NUS is now teaching.

So now what? We have rule books and POE’s and Case Books and interpretations printed or otherwise, and comments on these and other boards, and NUS instructors – and they don’t seem to be all saying the same. How the hell are we umpires in the field to know what to call?

WMB


[Edited by WestMichBlue on Mar 6th, 2005 at 01:07 AM]