I'll set the stage: It's my first season umpiring(three years ago). I received a call the night before a 12u tournament asking to fill-in. As it turns out, I find myself on the bases in the championship game. I'm not bragging, etc. that's just the way it happened.

The sitch: R2/R3 one out, middle innings, defense ahead by a couple, infielders playing back.
B1 pops-up to a point about halfway between 2B and 3B right on the basepath. R2 starts running, gets a little past the point where the ball is coming down, realizes that there's a good chance he'll be doubled up, and retreats to 2B.
The SS sees the pop-up, but since he's deeper than normal he has to accelerate quickly to get to it. He takes about four or five full-speed steps, sees R2 crossing about six-eight feet in front of him, and stops completely. R2 doesn't stop after he reverses direction.

I ruled no interference. (I realize that for any of you to rule on this YHTBT.) In my judgement(key words to be sure) if the SS had continued to where the ball was coming down he would have had a play on the ball. R2 was clearing the area the SS needed in order to make the play. I think that the SS let himself get distracted by R2 crossing his field of vision.

Which leads to my question: What guidelines do any of you have when ruling on a play such as this? Is contact required in order to call interference? Or can the defense claim interference by distraction? Just how close do the players involved have to be to each other?

As I visualize the situation you describe I think the F6 stopped because he thought he was about to collide with the runner. If that's what I judge, I would call that interference. The runner's obligation to clear out for the fielder is absolute.

If you have contact, you need to make a call, but there does not need to be contact to make a call.

Call the interference
 

To me I see this as interference. Especially considering that this is 12U.

Even in HS, if R2 is in the way of F6 making the play, the coach is going to expect the interference call.

Thanks
David

I was in 'C' so I was right there. The way I saw it, if the SS had continued straight to the ball without hesitation he would have passed at least three-four feet behind the retreating R2. I figured that since R2 had cleared the straight-line path needed by the SS to make the play and was headed away from that path, it became incumbent upon the SS to realize that he could continue unhindered. I have a tough time making an interference call if the runner has cleared the path needed by the fielder making a play. And that for me is the crux of the matter. If the relative positions of R2/SS were reversed, with R2 running into the SS's path, then yes I call that interference. In the reverse situation it is absolutely incumbent upon the runner to avoid the fielder making the play.

The way you added on the R2 had already cleared out of the way then I would say no interference. SS needs to get after the ball.

The SS quit, on an attempt to catch a fly ball. Fielders should never give up on a fly ball and umpires should not reward the defense when they do.

If they "quit" in an attempt to avoid a collision with a runner, then it is the runner who is at fault for not yielding to the fielder. A collision is not a prerequisite for an interference call, and that was what I assumed was the crux of the poster's question in his original post. His later clarifications put such fine distinctions on who was doing what exactly when that it became a "you had to be there" play, impossible to rule on accuratley from the mere written description.

A runner who does not avoid a fielder making a play on a ball is guilty of interference. A fielder who quits on a ball to avoid a runner is guilty of poor fielding.

"if a runner fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball or if a runner hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, the runner shall be called out for interference." [PBUC]

"A fielder is protected if he is trying to field a batted ball.... A fielder is "trying to field" (or "in the act of fielding") a ball when he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball". [J/R]

The SS in this play has the right of way, and he is yielding the right of way so the runner will not be called for interference. Don't quit on the ball and he will get a catch or a call, if the runner does not avoid him.

The Manager's Reply
 

After I had explained what I saw on the play and why I ruled the way I did, the defensive manager(while turning away) said, "I'll just tell him next time to run into the runner." And there you have it. I agree with DG that a fielder who quits on the ball is not helping himself to get the interference call.

One step further: How about this same situation but instead as R2 turns back for 2B he realizes he may run into the SS, and stops completely before crossing the SS's path. At the same time the SS also stops because he thinks he may be run into by R2. Now we have two players in the middle of the infield just standing there. How would you rule in this instance?

Re: The Manager's Reply
 

I would never coach a fielder to run into runners. That could lead to an obstruction call. I would coach them to never give up on a batted ball (fly or grounder)and the rest will take care of itself. The fielder is not out there to draw interference calls, he is out there to field his position.

On your one step further play; there is nothing to rule on unless something else you have not mentioned happens, like the runner contacts the SS as he reaches for the bouncing ball. The runner avoided the fielder, which he must do, and the fielder gave up on the ball, which he should not do. It bounced, I would rule on what happens next, if anything does.

[Edited by DG on Jan 16th, 2005 at 02:35 PM]

The inclusion of the phrase I have underlined above makes your statement false. It implies that the fielder must "draw contact" in order to get the interference call. That's a very unfortunate (and unsafe for the players) umpiring myth that consultation with any legitimate umpire clinician will quickly dispel.

The citations you provided do not support the belief that a collision must occur in order for interference to be called.

I never said a collision must occur in order for interference to be called. The citations I provided were to illustrate the obligation on the part of the runner to avoid the fielder, "who is making a play", not to illustrate that a fielder who has given up on the play should be rewarded for his lack of effort. I believe I said I would not coach a fielder to run into the runner (ie "draw contact") but I would coach him to not give up on the ball and the rest will take care of itself.

You said a fielder who quits on a ball in order to avoid a runner should not get an interference call, and the logical interpretation of that statement is that the fielder would have to continue on and run into the runner, in order to get the interference call from you.

A fielder who inexplicably quits on a ball, I would agree does not deserve an interference call just because a runner is in the vicinity. But if the fielder clearly alters his path - including stopping in his tracks - because a runner's path is blocking the fielder's path to the ball, then that is interference and should be called.

If you wish to replace "to avoid a runner" with "inexplicably" in your statement, then I will agree with you. If you insist on including the condition "to avoid a runner," then I continue to insist you are wrong.

I had to look "inexplicably" up before I could respond. Thanks for agreeing with me, because I find it "inexplicable" for a SS to quit on a fly ball because a runner is nearby (although it is arguable that 6-8 feet away is nearby), even a 12 year old SS, and I find it "inexplicable" for a defensive coach to expect an interference call on this play.

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.

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.

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.

READ WHAT I SAID. PROBABLY A PLAY THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO WITNESS TO PROPERLY RULE ON. THAT BEING SAID IF JUDGEMENT HAS TO BE APPLIED GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE DEFENSE. 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**

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.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!! LOUD NOISES!!!! PLEASe stop yelling you're hurting my eyes.

The age group matters in this type of play
 

I would think that the age group really does make a BIG difference in how this play is called.

But regardless, the definition of interference (offensive) is <i>an act... which intereferes with, obstruct, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.</i>.

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

"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.

To the extent your statement implies it is applicable to the entire body of interference rules, it is incorrect. Intent is a factor in judging and/or penalizing interference, in various circumstances.

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.

My apologies for the global-sounding statement. I was indeed referring to this particular play. I'll watch that in the future. :)

1. Interference can be intentional or unintentional ie an accident. Intent has everything to do with it. Whether as a result the play was sucessful or not (for the defense) is irrelevant when interference occurrs. If you want examples I'll give them to you.

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]

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.

In my opinion, you're going WAY overboard in anal-retentive, judgmental holier-than-thouism, railing at somebody who's guilty of nothing more than repeating a concept that is common and familiar to veteran umpires of every level of baseball. I suggest you chill the freak out a little.

[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.

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.

You've described an umpire's worst nightmare - an assignor who questions his on-the-field judgment calls from the stands, who gives more credence to COACHES' complaints about his judgment decisions than his own explanations, who is so didactic in his approach he doesn't understand the universal umpiring axiom (which is actually a point of emphasis in most training programs, including Little League's) that strikes and outs are a good thing, and that there most definitely IS a benefit of the doubt to be evaluated on many if not most judgment calls.

The worst thing you've described about this guy is some training deficiencies. Who was responsible for his training? Oh, you?

Carl Childress's "51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game," must read like a diary to you.


[Edited by Dave Hensley on Jan 19th, 2005 at 09:01 AM]

Dave: WHOA!!!

"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).

... is NOT a "training deficiency". Character defect is closer.

"Don't call what you don't see" is a very basic umpiring axiom, and taking correction from your assignor is basic good sense.

Admittedly, getting fired on 2 evals, only one with a post-game consult, is a bit harsh; but apparently mcrowder has the luxury of more willing and able officials than he needs.

First, the phenomenon of being persuaded to uphold an appeal because (1) you didn't actually see the touch or miss, and (2) you reason since they appealed it, he must have missed it, is quite common among inexperienced umpires, when they're at their most pliable. It is easily correctable with the right feedback. "You're fired" is NOT the right feedback.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley
[B]
We can agree to disagree on this point.

Wishing you luck. Hope you have a good season.

We are not in substantial disagreement, as witness the last paragraph of my earlier post [which you snipped]. My comment was based on the totality of the comments/ reasoning attributed to the ump in question, which seem to me to reflect more his attitude and character than his level of training or "pliability".

That said, we also were not there, and did not see the level and quality of play the ump was having to cope with; alone, no less.

I once banged a kid out on a pick @ 1B; and when he asked me (politely, I am well known in this league) between innings how he was out on that play, I told him: "'Cause otherwise we'd still be playing that same half-inning tommorrow at this time". Even that teenager recognised the response as appropriate [and, unfortunately, accurate] under the circumstances. It is possible that mcrowder might not approve.

mcrowder, despite having at least 2 games requiring solo coverage, apparently shares with Sandy Alderson the luxury of having more competent and available umpires than he [usually] needs. He can, therefore, afford to be a real hard@$$ about doing it his way with a minimum of handholding feedback. Remember, he did evaluate and correct [OK, "rant" at] his ump, and nothing apparently changed at the next evaluation opportunity. Would I like him to assign my games? Probably not: but I've done the assigning job, and it's hard enough without getting complaints from BOTH coaches [usually a good sign that SOMEthing was wrong] about a guy with a crummy attitude who will not take correction.


[Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 19th, 2005 at 11:03 AM]

Wow.

First, I tried to make the email not too horribly long when describing the actions that transpired, and horribly failed. :)

Then I realize I probably didn't paint the picture of this guy very well when I described it here, if that is the response I got here.

I hope I'm not every umpire's worst nightmare. I'll have to consider that going forward. I think I'm pretty reasonable with my umpires, and work with them pretty well. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway...

I do work on the field as well, and work about as much as any of my other umpires. When I'm on the field, I'm an umpire, not an assignor or UIC, and I try not to even discuss assigning issues on the field. I back up my partner, even if I saw it differently from far away (and I know when to admit that he was closer to the play than I was when I do see things differently). I'm aware that we all make mistakes, and that I do as well.

And don't forget that my first inkling of a problem with this guy was when I was working with him.

I think anytime 1 coach calls to complain about an umpire, MOST of the time, it's just to grouse over a loss and misplace blame for the loss on someone other than himself. I don't place a lot of faith in a coach's opinion of a particular umpire --- it takes much more than one coach calling about an umpire to make me wonder if possibly they are right. I've even had the pleasure of taking the occasional phone call about how bad an umpire was that night, learning that the umpire in question was me. :)

However, when BOTH coaches complain, via separate phone calls, and the complaints are about generally the same thing - I think that does indicate a problem, at least with that particular game.

I'm confused that you seemed upset that I evaluated him from the stands. Other than working with him (at which point I really have more responsibilities to the game than just watching him), how would you prefer I evaluate him after what sounded like a legitimate set of complaints?

I could have lived with an explanation that he was having a bad night, he had sick kids at home he was worried about, or even that he didn't see things that way.

What bothered me most about the conversation was that he KNEW he'd made the wrong calls on some plays - not in retrospect, but when he made them; and he made the bad calls intentionally. Also, he made at least 2 calls he didn't even see, and didn't seem to see a problem with making such a call. Also, during the conversation, his attitude was very cavalier, almost like he was thinking, "Yeah, yeah, whatever - I'll say whatever I need to just to end this conversation, but have no intention of listening."

But even then - like you said, it was just one bad night. I honestly hoped that after we'd talked, he'd not intentionally make bad calls to get home early, and he'd only call what he saw. I also knew that if I showed up to watch - that would be the 1 game he called correctly (and he'd be nervous, knowing he was being watched, and that might cause him to have a bad game). My friend that I sent was a UIC elsewhere. I didn't even tell him why I wanted him to watch, or even which umpire I was concerned about. (Actually, I didn't even tell him I was concerned about one at all - I just asked him to show up and watch the umpires. It could have been because I wanted to show him how good an umpire was for all he knew.) But when he called, it was obvious to him, and he even made a similar comment, "Looked to me like this guy just wanted to get home."

If this guy had shown me any reason to keep him, I would have. He's been doing this a while, and even though I don't respect his ethics anymore, I do respect his rules knowledge. Like I said, though, most of my umpires complaints are that they don't get enough games as it is. Other than that 1 night where the two of us worked solo, I've not had much of a problem filling the field, and have even gone so far as to calling the league to ask if they minded if we worked with 3 umpires for certain games (getting permission (and pay) for this about half the time).