|
Mon Jan 17, 2005, 02:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the crux of the question here is --- did the fielder HAVE to stop to avoid the runner. If so, it's interference, regardless of whether contact is made.
Admittedly HTBT, but the original situation sounds like the fielder did not HAVE to stop to avoid contact, and that he could have played the ball without making contact. Therefore, no interference. 
|
|
Mon Jan 17, 2005, 04:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is one of those plays that you have to see to have an opinion on. However, being the greedy person that I am I would have called interference ot get the out. When the offensive Coach came out to complain I would say why is your kid running on a pop up to short? Give the benfit of the doubt to the defense.
|
|
Mon Jan 17, 2005, 04:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
So in other words, if the runner did not break any rules, you'd call him out in order to get home earlier?
Instead of awarding benefit of the doubt, I'd rather know the rules and have no doubt. Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I (a scheduler as well as umpire) stopped scheduling 1 person last year specifically because of this mentality. I want my umpires there for the girls, and with the intention of calling the game, not influencing it. If they need to get home sooner, I will allow them to simply not leave their homes at all. If that makes me an @$$, so be it.
|
|
Mon Jan 17, 2005, 05:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. WHY IS HE RUNNING ON A POP UP. STUPID PLAY 2. IF IT'S A STUPID PLAY WHY SHOULD I BAIL HIM OUT. 3. MAYBE HE'S A SMART PLAYER THAT THOUGHT THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND IS TRYING TO SAVE HIS A** ERGO I GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE DEFENSE. BY THE WAY IF YOU WERE AN UMPIRE YOU'D RECOGNIZE AN OBVIOUS JOKE THAT WE ARE GREEDY B*****DS AND THAT WE WANT OUTS AND STRIKES.
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 11:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The age group matters in this type of play
Quote:
But regardless, the definition of interference (offensive) is an act... which intereferes with, obstruct, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.. Based on that definition, and looking at the original play, I would think the runner did several of the above. That would weigh heavily on my ruling in this play as well as the fact that the kids are 12U and don't really know what's going on yet. Thanks David
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 02:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"HOW DO YOU KNOW WITHOUT SEEING THIS PLAY THAT THE RUNNER DID NOT DELIBERATELY AND WITH MALICE AND FORETHOUGHT INTENTIONALLY CAUSE THE DEFENSE TO HESITATE. SINCE I CAN'T READ THAT RUNNERS MIND I'M GOING TO USE COMMON SENSE.
1. WHY IS HE RUNNING ON A POP UP. STUPID PLAY 2. IF IT'S A STUPID PLAY WHY SHOULD I BAIL HIM OUT. 3. MAYBE HE'S A SMART PLAYER THAT THOUGHT THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND IS TRYING TO SAVE HIS A**" First, Gordo - stop shouting. Second, Gordo - intention has absolutely no bearing on interference. If you were even a speck of a decent umpire, you'd know that. Whether the runner INTENDED to cause the defense to hesitate or not is completely irrelevant. Whether he DID interfere with the fielder's ability to catch the ball is ALL that matters. If he INTENDED to cause the defense to hesitate, and failed to do so, he's not out. If he did NOT intend to interfere, yet interfered anyway, he's out. So, get INTENTION completely out of your mind. Third, Gordo - it is not your place or mine to penalize stupidity or reward intelligence. Call the damn game by the damn rules. You are not "bailing him out" if you don't call him out when an out is not warranted. Fourth, Gordo - Common sense does not include disregarding the rules. Instead of using common sense to enforce a personal agenda, use your common sense to tell you what rule to apply and apply it correctly. Lastly, Gordo - if that was a joke, it was a poor one. If it was a joke, why did you perpetuate the joke seriously in this subsequent post? It is a pet peeve of mine to see umpires (whether they work for me or not) who just want to get the game over. There's no place for "benefit of the doubt" on this play. See what you call, and Call what you see. Period. You should not be thinking... "How can I get an out here" or "How can I get the game over with quicker." You should not be thinking, "I wonder how smart that runner is, and what he was thinking about." You SHOULD be thinking, "Did the runner interfere?" And that's ALL you should be thinking. If you cannot divorce your personal agenda from your ability to make judgement where judgement is required, and call based on that judgement, then PLEASE leave the field.
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 03:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
E.g., interference by a runner who is in contact with a base is only applicable if it is judged to be intentional interference. E.g., if a runner is judged to have "willfully and deliberately" interfered with a fielder with the intent of breaking up a doubleplay, then a double penalty is applied - both the runner and the batter-runner are called out. If you were limiting your statement to the specific play that began this thread, then I agree intent is not a factor on this specific play. But your wording made it sound like you were applying your statement to interference rules in general, and that would be incorrect.
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 03:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 04:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2. All umpires want are strikes and outs. ie. They want the pitcher to throw strikes and for routine plays to be made. The rest will take care of itself. Or do you think that umpires want balls and errors. I know I don't. You never heard this? 3. Never disregard the rules. 4. Pet peeve of mine when someone can make a judgement or imply that I would ever cheat on the field never having met me which is what you are doing. 5. It's a play one would have to see to make a proper call as to whether interference occurered which I think I stated above.I also stated above the factors that I would take into consideration if I had doubt as to what to call. That being said since judgement is required with Interference when in doubt rule in favor of the defense. [Edited by gordon30307 on Jan 18th, 2005 at 04:21 PM]
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 06:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Uh... what?
You said: "Interference can be intentional or unintentional ie an accident." I agree with this statement 100%. Then you said: "Intent has everything to do with it." This is the opposite of what you just said. What exactly do you mean then? If I'm making judgements on you, it's based on what you wrote - which is all I have to go on. It was you that said you'd give benefit of the doubt to the defense. Your apparent justification is because giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense gets you home earlier. You should be run out on your ear for that alone. If I've misunderstood your motive, then tell my why you would give the benefit of the doubt to the defense, as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. (PS - there should be no doubt. Call what you see. Period. The thought of, "Well, I'm not really sure what I saw there, so I'll give it to the defense" is quite frankly awful.) Yes, of course I've heard of umpires that simply want outs and strikes. If you recall correctly, I mentioned firing one for just that. That mentality is appalling. Umpires should not WANT anything (or root for anything) lest it cloud their judgment. We are there to officiate the contest, not to wish for certain outcomes. Do I enjoy a 70 minute 1-0 game more than a 3 hour walkfest? Of course I do, and so do my kids when I get home early ... but I'm not there for my enjoyment - I'm there to officiate. I'm certainly not rooting for strikes or outs, or rooting against balls and errors. I'm there to officiate. You, obviously, are not, and clearly you need to rethink your reasons for being on the diamond. Truly --- why are you there? Everyone has a different answer to this - and I'm truly curious... why are YOU there? If it's to get home as quickly as possible and collect a nominal fee ... I'd suggest retirement. If it is something else - then why the predisposition to "give the benefit of doubt to the defense"? Honestly, this statement alone should disqualify you.
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 09:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 10:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mcrowder
[B]Uh... what? You said: "Interference can be intentional or unintentional ie an accident." I agree with this statement 100%. Then you said: "Intent has everything to do with it." This is the opposite of what you just said. What exactly do you mean then? If I'm making judgements on you, it's based on what you wrote - which is all I have to go on. It was you that said you'd give benefit of the doubt to the defense. Exactly borderline play could argue interference no interference I give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. Your apparent justification is because giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense gets you home earlier. Never said that nor implied that. You should be run out on your ear for that alone. If I've misunderstood your motive, then tell my why you would give the benefit of the doubt to the defense, as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. Concerning interference because the offensive player the runner or batter runner is ALWAYS supposed to allow the defensive player the opportunity to make a play. If the question of interference did he or didn't he (could theoretically argue either way) Then obviously the runner or batter runner either intentionally or unintentially was trying to gain an unfair advantage. (PS - there should be no doubt. Call what you see. Period. Always do. The thought of, "Well, I'm not really sure what I saw there, so I'll give it to the defense" is quite frankly awful.) Never done that. Yes, of course I've heard of umpires that simply want outs and strikes. What's wrong with that as long as you make the proper calls on the bases or behind the plate. If you recall correctly, I mentioned firing one for just that. Why? Was he calling players obviously safe out? Did he have a bad strike zone? You were his boss why didn't you help him out? Umpires should not WANT anything (or root for anything) lest it cloud their judgment. We are there to officiate the contest, not to wish for certain outcomes. Never done that I could care less who wins. But I do like good games. Do I enjoy a 70 minute 1-0 game more than a 3 hour walkfest? Of course I do, and so do my kids when I get home early ... but I'm not there for my enjoyment. If you're not there for the enjoyment then you should quit. If you're not their for the love of the game than you should quit. If you're not their for the challenge of getting better at the craft then you should quit. I can't think of anything better than having the dish and behind you a half a dozen scouts with radar guns scouting a prospect. I don't know if you've ever experienced that and until you have it's almost better than...... On second thought maybe not but close. I'm there to officiate. I'm certainly not rooting for strikes or outs, I'm not rooting I'm hoping for strikes and outs (don't always get them). When the pitchers are throwing strikes and routine plays are made you've got a good game. Nothing like a well played game by both teams. What's wrong with hoping for that? or rooting against balls and errors. What's wrong with that? See above. I'm there to officiate. I'm there to umpire. You, obviously, are not, and clearly you need to rethink your reasons for being on the diamond. Truly --- why are you there? Everyone has a different answer to this - and I'm truly curious... why are YOU there? See above.
|
|
Wed Jan 19, 2005, 08:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't mean for this to become a pissing contest, so I'll back off a bit. If I was overly judgmental, I apologize.
I do take significant issue (obviously) with the one statement you made repeatedly - Give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. If you truly simply call what you see, then there's no benefit of the doubt to be given. My issue is with the phrase being thrown about like an umpiring axiom, when there is no true reason (other than a desire to go home early) to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. But I'll leave it there. Why did I "fire" that umpire? I worked with him once and noticed some "fishy" calls, and remarked on one or two in a polite way. A few games later I got a complaint from BOTH coaches after a game he worked alone (I was working alone elsewhere). While making allowances that it's a pain in the backside to work alone, we were stuck that night and had to make due. His version of making due, according to the coaches, was to call strikes from behind the mound, stay near the mound for all calls on the bases, and (again - according to both coaches) call every play possible an out, even ones that were safe by 2 steps. I wasn't there, so most of the judgement stuff I took with a grain of salt, but I did talk with him about calling from the mound and not moving. I also decided to watch his next evening working. He had a partner, so worked one plate, one bases, and his mechanics were fine, but I saw several plays that bothered me. Some safe/out judgements, but some odd ones. Two plays for leaving early that weren't close - one of which where his back was to the runner. One for missing a base while he was not looking at that base. I discussed with him afterward, and his entire motivation was along the "I just want to get it over with" line. "Hey, I'm just out here to get outs." "If I don't call the close ones outs, I'll never get home." "I figured that if they were appealing, they saw something I didn't, so he must have done it" (referring to the leaving early and the missed base). I told him it was not acceptable, and basically gave him the rant I gave you earlier. I put him on the field again, and had a buddy of mine watch specifically for these types of plays. I wasn't there so he didn't know he was being watched. Apparently the game went exactly the way the one above did. I have no place on my fields for an umpire like that, when (normally) I have plenty of people asking for more games.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
