Interference at first base

[RustyWinslow]

Dixie Youth 9-10yr. old
Ground ball to F1, throws to back pedaling F3 whose momentum carries him across the bag as if he was a base runner. Simultaneous collision on top of the bag at first, ball drops out, field umpire calls him safe, Home plate umpire (without anyone asking) promptly overrules, calls "interference" and tells me to go look at rule 7.09.
BR ran directly through the bag and never veered outside the double base path lines.
Is this not the wrong call (stating that rule) and what are the guidelines on stepping out and overruling the field umpire without being appealed to by either team.
Thanks (probably a stupid question, yet would appreciate the help.)

[blueump]

This is something I always communicate with my partner (if I haven't worked with him before, and sometimes even if I have) BEFORE the game ever starts:

It is improper to ever "over-rule" any umpire, unless they ask for your help. If the call at first base is your call, it stays your call unless you ask for help.

How would I handle it? Between innings, I would gently approach my partner (he'd know something was up, cause I wouldn't be where I belonged during the inning change) and tell him that he ever over-ruled a call of mine again, without me asking for help, he'd be finishing the game ALONE!

JMHO

[Rich]

Originally posted by blueump
This is something I always communicate with my partner (if I haven't worked with him before, and sometimes even if I have) BEFORE the game ever starts:

It is improper to ever "over-rule" any umpire, unless they ask for your help. If the call at first base is your call, it stays your call unless you ask for help.

How would I handle it? Between innings, I would gently approach my partner (he'd know something was up, cause I wouldn't be where I belonged during the inning change) and tell him that he ever over-ruled a call of mine again, without me asking for help, he'd be finishing the game ALONE!

JMHO

A plate umpire calling interference isn't an overrule. Happens all the time in running lane interference -- the base umpire calls safe on the merit of the play and the plate umpire calls the interference because he has the angle.

Doesn't sound like the right call in this situation, though.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


A plate umpire calling interference isn't an overrule. Happens all the time in running lane interference -- the base umpire calls safe on the merit of the play and the plate umpire calls the interference because he has the angle.

Doesn't sound like the right call in this situation, though.

Agreed. Two calls being made on two different aspects of the play by the appropriate umpires. However, it sounds as if the Plate Umpire saw it differently than Rusty.

[RustyWinslow]

Home plate umpire agrees in later conversation that the collision occured directly on top of the bag. Technically first base is "to the left" of the inside foul line. How does this apply to 7.09 (k) and when is the runner entitled to run directly to the bag. Keep in mind F3's momentum is carrying him across the bag (as if he was running from the mound to first) and a collision was unavoidable. Technically, at some point BR has to take a path inside the foul line in order to hit the bag.
For the record........I did not argue this call, was just wanting to clarify it.

[TwoBits]

I hope the plate umpire didn't "over rule" but just enforced an interference penalty. I get tired of hearing "over rule that ump!" when I work the plate, and plate umps that indeed do that just add to the problem.

Regardless, this play probably warranted a discussion between the field and plate umps. HTBT.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

If I was the base ump and some dingbat tried to overrule my call.... I'd have had a discussion right then and there. And when we were done the runner would be safe.

Runners colliding at a base is not interference. Especially when the first baseman is backing into an area where he thinks the base might be located.

Was there a double base - I see some mention of it? If the 1st baseman was properly standing on the inside (white) bag, not backing over both bags, and the batter runner decided to use the white bag instead of running unimpeded through the outside (orange) bag... now I've got some issues. Runner can be called out for using the wrong bag. Maybe I misunderstood, but it didn't sound like this was the situation.

My partner is going to get vocally lambasted in front everyone and when I'm done, we're going to have incidental contact, dropped ball, and a safe runner.

I've never overruled a base umpire since it happened to me - probably 15 years ago.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
If I was the base ump and some dingbat tried to overrule my call.... I'd have had a discussion right then and there. And when we were done the runner would be safe.

Runners colliding at a base is not interference. Especially when the first baseman is backing into an area where he thinks the base might be located.

The plate umpire did not overrule the call. He called interference. Yes he should not have called the interference. What else is there to discuss. He needs to look over the interference rule. He did not change a call from safe to out. He was just confused on what is interference and what is not.

[RustyWinslow]

My fault........bad choice of words. The play was not "overuled", the interference call was just........"enforced????" (and, to his credit, in a quick and timely manner). As I said before, there was no argument to the call, just wanted to clarify the rule. Ask a question about one rule.......learn something new about another. I would have continued to think that an umpire stepping in and calling interference on his partners call would be breaking the old unwritten rule of "don't show up your counterpart".
However........I still need some help on my earlier comment:
"Technically first base is "to the left" of the inside foul line. How does this apply to 7.09 (k) and when is the runner entitled to run directly to the bag....blah, blah.... at some point BR has to take a path inside the foul line in order to hit the bag."
In terms even I can understand........."if the F1 is directly on top of the bag (and I mean directly with both feet), in the process of fielding the throw and BR runs in to him (without malicious intent, purely agreeably coincedental).....is this interference.
Let me guess.........the dreaded, unarguable JUDGEMENT call. I don't argue those, looking for something cut and dry....and I'm not gonna get it am I?
thanks again for all the help

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Rusty check out the definition of a catch. If F3 was unable to hold onto the ball, he didn't make a catch.

Check out definition of interference. If the BR didn't intentionally get in the way of the throw or intentionally/maliciously cause contact with F3, there was no interference. This is just two people trying to be in the same spot at the same time - incidental contact.

Plate umpire had no business injecting his opinions into the base umpire's call.

Sounds like it was a poor play, somewhat out of control, by the defense. Batter-runner did nothing wrong. He only ran to his base.

To call the runner out after F3 dropped the ball is not right.

Maybe there is more to this than I have gathered but it sounds like a poor decision by the PU.

[greymule]

Seems that many people think that the very fact that a collision has occurred is evidence of some sort of violation by somebody. The kid backpedals into the base and gets runs over. Sorry, kid. When you backpedal into a base you might get run over. Maybe he'll learn something from that.

I don't know Dixie rules, but I know that at least one code specifies that "force" outs cannot be undone by a collision. The instant the fielder touches the base, the runner is out, and a subsequent dropped ball is irrelevant to that play.

But unless Dixie has such a provision, it was a bad call.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Rusty check out the definition of a catch. If F3 was unable to hold onto the ball, he didn't make a catch.

Check out definition of interference. If the BR didn't intentionally get in the way of the throw or intentionally/maliciously cause contact with F3, there was no interference. This is just two people trying to be in the same spot at the same time - incidental contact.

Plate umpire had no business injecting his opinions into the base umpire's call.

Sounds like it was a poor play, somewhat out of control, by the defense. Batter-runner did nothing wrong. He only ran to his base.

To call the runner out after F3 dropped the ball is not right.

Maybe there is more to this than I have gathered but it sounds like a poor decision by the PU.

While I agree the plate ump probably made the wrong call I have to disagree with a couple of things, Tony,

First, it WAS his call to make. He was not interjecting his opinion into the BU call of safe/out. An interference/obstruction decision was a separate call on the same play and it was his to make.

Secondly, a "catch" of a thrown ball is different from the "catch" of a batted ball, particularly on a force play.

[Tim C]

Tony:

"Rusty check out the definition of a catch."

Be "verwee" careful with this reference. As Garth has pointed out there is a distinct difference betwix a "Catch" (ball in flight) and a "Gloved Ball" (the catching of a thrown ball) especially during a force out.

Tee

[mcrowder]

There's no difference at Dixie. If the fielder has control when he touches the bag on a force, it's an out, regardless of subsequent action.

PS - Isn't lane interference (PU's call) only relevant when the runner interferes with a THROW. Lane interference can't be the call here. Any other interference that might or might not be in play here is the BU's call.

[Tim C]

"If the fielder has control when he touches the bag on a force, it's an out,regardless of subsequent action."

I believe that is what Garth and I are trying to say.

While the definition of a "catch" requires voluntary release a "gloved ball" does not on a force play (in the most general of terms, the play at first falls into a force play type action).

So we are agreeing with YOU.

Tee