[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue

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.

This is correct, but remember, only the umpire can make that determination. There is no given that a bad throw IS a violation, but that it CAN be a violation.

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.

I don't buy that one for a second as a locked-in "must be the call" conclusion. It could be, but I don't think that statement is an apply-to-all ruling.

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!”

I'll see Kevin this weekend. Maybe I can take a shot at him on this one.
{b}

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.[/b]

This is true. However, I don't think he's talking about a runner going "poof", but one that has been put out, knows it and continues to run or stay in the path. Boy, am I going to have fun this weekend.

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.

There was no mention of such a "change" in opinion when we were all outside freezing our tails off in OKC last month. I know umpires who wait until the come up to make these call. It doesn't serve them well. Make that call while down with a short pause and there isn't any question. In SP, the flow in general makes it seem as if they are guessing.

In FP, in the quicker flow of that game, a delayed call can really throw off a batter and/or pitcher. There are some real good umpires who can come up making the strike call in one continuous motion, but it's not for everyone.

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?

While doing things in a uniform fashion is a good thing, in recent years ASA has allowed for some individualism as long as it works and doesn't cause a problem.




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