Jim Porter wrote:

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the umpire hadn't called interference and the play was allowed to stand not another word would've been said about it by anyone -- not Lou Piniella, not anyone. It was a routine-looking play interrupted by a surprise interference call. I'd even be willing to bet Lou Piniella didn't even know R2 and F5 had made contact. It required slow motion replay just to see it on television even with a favorable camera angle.
__________________

Maybe Big Lou didn't see exactly what happened but when I saw the live play it was obvious something was amiss.

I didn't see the contact but I did see Damons right shoulder point to second base. Darling saw it point blank and called it. Do you really think that Upton, the SS, would have just stood by and let it go. You know how Big Lou thinks about that. Good call Gary. G.

In the past.......
 

Intereference is a freaking no-brainer. OBR code makes it that way, what is this hulabaloo bout? Porters refereence that it is not called in his MSBL? Funny, we got some old time pro's in ours.....kick and scream if it aint called. Guess different strokes...........

Re: In the past.......
 

I've had guys in MSBL throw hissy fits at me because I called an out when F3 tagged the base with his glove instead of his foot. But we also have a number of former Major Leaguers in our MSBL program, too. Some are recognizable names. Of course, our MSBL program has three age divisions, so we have all kinds of folks playing. I don't think a single one of them would've thought there was interference on that play.

Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that the game would've gone on without a single mention of the contact. There truly was no interference, only contact. The play was made unimpeded. F5 didn't lose a step. The out was made at first. Where is there something to complain about for anyone?

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 11:08 PM]

Re: Re: In the past.......
 

All this would be wonderful if interference was truly called this way, but it isn't.

Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Oh, sure it is. You heard Peter's estimate. A couple of us have even admitted it on this board. So, right or wrong, it is being called that way. Amateur umpires everywhere are creating their own kind of delayed dead ball to see if contact is merely incidental or if it truly interferes with the fielder's attempt to make a play.

You can get away with a slight delay because seldom is the initial interference call heard over the excitement of a play anyway. So you just kill play as soon as you know whether the fielder was interfered with or not -- usually a second or so after the contact -- not much time at all.

I'm not trying to muddy any waters. I know very well how interference is called and enforced. I just wanted to discuss how many umpires aren't doing it by the book, and whether how they are doing it is actually a good idea -- because I actually think it is.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 14th, 2004 at 01:29 AM]

I just wanted to add that I appreciated Peter's response a great deal. It was quite honest. He said his philosophy is to jump on an out when he can get it. That philosophy is one our high school association employs. As our Umpire-in-Chief always says, "We are to assist the defense whenever possible."

Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~


I see your point, Jim. Kinda like having DPI in football, "hey offence, ya wanna take the penalty or decline it?" This would just create problems, IMHO. Lots of umps have problems with type B obs, now we have type B int. Although int is a bit easier enforcement than obs for some. We had this one ump this past season for my kids 9-10's. You know those F3's that stare at the ball heading for the gap and just stand on the bag, obstruct BR? This guy would automatically add a bag to where they ended up, so he'd tell us to keep em running, kid would get thrown out by 20 feet at third, he would give em the bag. THAT was frustrating!!!

Jim, I certainly see your point and it's a valid point in some situations that could be called incidental contact.

In my opinion this wasn't one of them. The reason being is that the contact was a mini-second before upton got to the ball. Too close for me.

Peter is fortunate WW isn't around as he would have questioned the authenticity of the "POLL" especially since there was no +/-. G.

Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

I think that calling it any other way than the way it is written in the book is wrong.

Here's why:

The rule states the runner has interfered if "he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball..."

Since the rule states that the runner must avoid contact, any contact, however slight, is against the rules. It should always be called because the runner is trying to gain an advantage for the offense by running as close as possible to the fielder, with out actually contacting him, to try and disrupt his attempt at fielding the ball. Either that or they just don't know or care about the rule, but in any case, the result is a legal attempt at interference without actually interfering (by making contact).

Since there is a definite advantage gained by coming close to a fielder, there should be a resulting penalty if contact is actually made.

In certain cases, I am for the advantage theory in not making certain calls. This is not one of them. If contact is made, the resulting penalty keeps the runners at their last legally aquired base at the time of interference. In the game in question, if the contact, however slight, was ignored then you just allowed the run to score when it should not have. Since contact was made, the penalty should be enforced and the R3 should remain at third.

The runners remaining on their base is a key point. The onus is on the runners to avoid fielders making plays. If they don't, they should receive the appropriate penalty of the out and the runners remaining where they were at the TOI.

There is no provision in the rule for incidental contact, nor should there be since there can be an advantage gained by just coming close.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Certainly, there can be interference without contact. Just coming close all by itself can be considered interference if the runner impeded the fielder's attempt to make a play. But you don't subscribe to the notion that there can be contact but no interference?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread.

Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change.

The rules as currently written are clear and unambiguous. The runner must avoid the fielder, period. If he does not, ie. he makes contact with the fielder, he has interfered.

I think this makes our jobs easier. If there is contact, it is interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty. And it is an easy explanation to the coach. Basically, contact=interference. He may not like it, but thems' the rules.

Anyone who enforces this rule differently makes another umpires life difficult if they get the same play afterwards.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't <i>prove</i> interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous."

But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't <i>prove</i> interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous." But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."

Exactly right. One has to imply the passage is telling us that the runner must avoid contact with a fielder. But it is also possible that it is the fielder's attempt to field a batted ball that must be avoided by the runner. Indeed, even Rule 2.00 would further suggest that it is the fielder's attempt to make a play that must be avoided by the very definition of interference itself.

As far as the other issue, I've always fancied using, "he," as a generic pronoun meaning either sex (or what-have-you) and I believe it is appropriate and preferred. But what do I know? I could be a sexist pig.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 19th, 2004 at 07:44 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Fair enough:

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:
Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of.

The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder.

Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference.

Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring.

I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called.