[PeteBooth]

For example, instead of acting like a jerk (which it sounds like he did), he had:

1. calmly requested time and, after granted, politely asked you if you had seen the contact between the runner & fielder (sounds like you did)

2. asked you if, in your judgement, the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the ball at the time of the contact & was the player who had the best play on the ball (sounds like he was)

3. suggested that, as he understood the rules, the runner should be called out for interference because 7.09(l) says he should if he "fails to avoid" the fielder in this situation (which it does).

Would you have done anything differently?

Coach IMO you are missing the point.

Umpires do not owe coaches ANY explanation on judgement calls. This isn't MLB where it's common practice to allow coaches to question anything.

1. calmly requested time and, after granted, politely asked you if you had seen the contact between the runner & fielder (sounds like you did)

I would simply say to you "Skip in MY JUDGEMENT" there was no Interference - END of Story. I would not get into a debate with you about the contact etc. Therefore, Numbers 2/3 above would be moot bcause the conversation wouldn't get that far.

Umpires do not question coaching moves and unless a rule has been mis-applied or mis interpreted we owe the coaches no explanation.

Interference is a Judgement call akin to calling balls / Strikes. We do not offer an explanation other than an occasional "That was outside" when a coach disagrees with a particular pitch and we do not owe him an explanation when we judge that there was no interference.

Pete Booth