Second game of varsity doubleheader,Fed rules.Team A
player caught in rundown between 2nd and 3rd.Defense does
a good job of rotating,as I move up from the plate.Defender
takes throw,and steps into base path to make the tag.
My partner is behind the play,and i call the out.Team A
coach comes onto the field wanting to know why we didn't
call "interference".(Yes,he said interference!)He then informs me that the defender had no right to block the basepath,saying the tag could be made from the side.I let him know defender had ever right to his position,as he was in control of the ball and was making a play on the runner.
Coach the tells me all I'm doing is allowing a potential catastrophe on the field,to which I explain malicious contact to coach.Coach looks at me,shaking his head as if I'm daft........

Your not trying to imply that some coach does'nt understand the rules are you? Especially at the varsity level.

You are hereby suspended and sent back to T ball.

Have a long and properous season!!!!!!!!

That coach probably learns his rules from the TV sports analysts. After A-Rod's interference last year, one of them explained that if the fielder making the tag had been in the running lane, then it would have been "interference" on the fielder and A-Rod would have been safe.

There should be a Constitutional Amendment forbidding announcers from "interpreting" the rules.

Bob

All in favor?........"I"

"Aye"

I think you did a great job when you told him the fielder had a right to be there because he had the ball and was making a play.

However, I'm not sure why you explained malicious contact to him. Just because a coach comes up with a dumb statement like a "potential catastrophe" could occur - disregard that statement and stick to what you said the first time.

Coaches are like lawyers, they keep bringing stuff up in hopes that you'll stumble on something. I think you stumped him with your first explanation so he then tried another/different angle (although he was reaching pretty far with that catastrophe statement).

My point is "LESS IS MORE".... meaning, the less you say, the better it is. Remember, "silence can never be misquoted". My response to his ignorant remark... "Coach, I understand what you're saying, but as I said, the fielder had possession of the ball, therefore there was no obstruction when he applied the tag".

By the way, it's early in the year - I'm sure you'll hear worse statements as the season goes on. Have a good year

HEY! Enough with the insulting us lawyers!!!
I resemble that remark!

That wasn't an insult - Actually, great lawyers have a knack for getting people to talk more than they probably should while on the stand. Somebody once told me about that analogy and it has always stuck with me. Whenever i see Skip coming out of the dugout towards me, I always tell myself... here comes Johnny Cochran - keep your mouth shut and just answer the questions ;)

Always good advice ;)
But equating lawyers with coaches ... them's fighting words. :D

yeah we should equate both of them into something else, like fish food.

and I agree on the announcers "interpetations" some of them prove daily that they may have been able to hit a ball but still have no clue about the game itself.

NOW I know why you are like you are! :D :D :D

"The fielder can always be in the basepath with the ball."

After that, give silence that can't be argued with. Then when the coach repeats himself, walk away.

...Oh wait, it was the SECOND game of a doubleheader? Never mind then, I was going to say something really REALLY intelligent, but it would sound Stoopid now because it would only be appropriate if this was the FIRST game of a doubleheader, because everybody knows that the rules are different between games of a doubleheader....

Huh??? Is it a problem that I mentioned the fact
that it was the SECOND game? Did I imply that changes
the rules?