Quote:
Originally posted by CoachJM
While I believe that it's nearly impossible to comment definitively on a possible interference situation without having seen the play, it seems to me that, as described, there is no way that "interference" is the proper call in this situation.
The principles behind the rules addressing interference protect the defense from "hindrance" by any member of the offensive team in the defense's attempt to make a play. But, the degree of protection varies by the situation.
If the defense is attempting a play on a batted ball, the protection is nearly absolute, with a few very specific exceptions.
If the defense is attempting to field a thrown ball, there is a lesser degree of protection, and any member of the offense who is "doing what he's supposed to" is excused from hindrance unless his action that hinders is judged "intentional" by the umpire.
If the defense is "chasing a loose ball", they have an even lesser degree of protection, and only blatantly intentional acts by a member of the offense are liable to be called for interference.
And, at least according to J/R, the defense must be attempting to make a play in order for the interference call to result in an out being charged against the defense.
So, what do we have in the situation Carl described? We have a fielder who, as he is gaining control of a "loose ball", is indisputably and unintentionally "hindered" by a member of the offense while not attempting to make a play (at least according to the J/R criteria).
There is no way that this is properly ruled interference with the R2 called out.
There remains the question of the "hindering" offensive player and whether or not he was properly out of the dugout.
For the sake of argument, let's say he was improperly out of the dugout. While there is precedent for judging "intention" solely for the fact that a player is not "doing what he's supposed to do", in this case it does not justify an interference/out call (since no "play" was hindered). The proper ruling would be a warning followed by ejection for a subsequent offense.
Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.
JM
|
Coach: I think it's a very well-written post. But I wish you hadn't said:
Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.
I've copied it in red because that's what it is, a red flag. (grin) Those people here who hate rats will seize upon that one sentence and miss the reasoned response before it.
I might as well reveal the interpretation I gave my umpires, which is: "Play on."
My main question was: What the heck was R2 doing while that ball was "trickling" [the umpire's word] toward the dugout?
The boy was in the dugout, and he tripped, and he fell on the catcher.
As you say:
"We have a fielder who, as he is gaining control of a 'loose ball,' is indisputably and unintentionally 'hindered' by a member of the offense while not attempting to make a play (at least according to the J/R criteria)."
I said the same thing, though not nearly so eloquently as you. As I recall, it was a phone call very late at night, and my response was: "That ain't interference."
To keep the record straight, let me say that the umpire had ruled interference and called out R2.
Naturally, he got away with it.
Your ruling and mine fall under the rubric of "burnt siena." Everybody saw the player fall on the catcher while a runner was advancing. Everybody reacts and thinks that's automatically interference, even the player's coach. They are seeing "brown."
When you and I don't make a call, there's going to be a small firestorm. We have made an unusual call on a usual occurrence (contact between player and fielder), and our "audience" expects something to happen.
BTW: I'm sorry you're
just a coach. I could use you in my association. Drop me an email, please.
And don't wave that flag in front of the rat killers.