Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
Second, the runner in my opinion slid short and would not have reached home plate in the absence of contact.
The offense will argue that he slid short because the catcher was there - the catcher caused it, therefore it's obstruction. My judgment call
Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate.
That's not judgement, it is a rules misinterpretation. PROTEST!
I refer you to Blue 37 statement below.
You need to learn the game. You need to learn the rules.
|
My interpretation from what I was instructed to do has absolutely nothing to do with my knowledge of the rules and neither you or anyone else has the right to question my knowledge of the rules or knowledge of the game.
It's not against the rules - it's a matter of interpretation. From the case book and rule book the phrases "IMMINENT and ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY" ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. My interpretation, and the interpretation of our IHSA certified clinician are the same. Imminent and attempting to make a play in his mind mean the fielder, in this case F2, has to have possession of the ball. All I am doing is interpreting the situation the way I was instructed to do - just like Blue 37 -except he's not getting any sh|t for it like I am.
It is the same with "imminent", although NFHS does not use that term. It uses the phrase "attempting to make a play" which still leaves it open to umpire judgment. My suggestion would be to find out how your association wants "attempting to make a play" judged, and call it that way. Our State rules guy has stated in our rules meeting the past two years that the "player must have the ball" or it is obstruction. I disagree with that interpretation, but I will do what I am told to do.
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL HIM HE'S WRONG, DOESN'T KNOW THE GAME OR THE RULES AS WELL.