Interference or not

[Carl Childress]

Here's a play that happened in my association. I was asked to provide a ruling "after the fact."

NFHS rules.

R2. The ball gets away from the catcher and trickles toward the opponents' dugout. F2 slides and comes to a stop at the lip of the dugout. As he gloves the ball, an opponent trying to get out of the way slips and falls onto the catcher. R2 pulls into third safely.

The umpire is certain that the catcher could have thrown to third for a play on R2, but he is also certain R2 would have been safe.

???

[Edited by Carl Childress on Apr 9th, 2005 at 01:34 PM]

[Macaroo]

Well (nice to have psychic umpires), in OBR the "opponent" must vacate the area a fielder needs attempting to play the ball. Thus R2 is out since the play "attempt" was on him. Not sure of NFHS differs.

[officialtony]

If the Offensive Player is outside the dugout, I would want to call interference just for him being outside the dugout ( unless he is the on deck batter ). Since you said the ball " trickles " toward the dugout, I have to believe all offensive players could get out of the way in plenty of time. I want to call interference anyway, since the catcher should have had the opportunity - whether he could have made the out or not. In my humble opinion, R2 is out for interference by teammate. Does this match up with your thinking?

[DG]

Since Carl asked this question there has be some supernatural reason that the obvious is not the right call, but to me the obvious is no call, since there is no catcher who ever lived who could throw out R2 at 3rd after the ball gets away from the catcher and trickles to the dugout lip. So the player who was trying to get out of the way did not interfere with anything, intentionally or unintentionally. This player could have been the on deck batter, or someone in the dugout who was moving and tripped into play area. It's not clear who this was from the post.

[UmpJM]

While I believe that it's nearly impossible to comment definitively on a possible interference situation without having seen the play, it seems to me that, as described, there is no way that "interference" is the proper call in this situation.

The principles behind the rules addressing interference protect the defense from "hindrance" by any member of the offensive team in the defense's attempt to make a play. But, the degree of protection varies by the situation.

If the defense is attempting a play on a batted ball, the protection is nearly absolute, with a few very specific exceptions.

If the defense is attempting to field a thrown ball, there is a lesser degree of protection, and any member of the offense who is "doing what he's supposed to" is excused from hindrance unless his action that hinders is judged "intentional" by the umpire.

If the defense is "chasing a loose ball", they have an even lesser degree of protection, and only blatantly intentional acts by a member of the offense are liable to be called for interference.

And, at least according to J/R, the defense must be attempting to make a play in order for the interference call to result in an out being charged against the defense.

So, what do we have in the situation Carl described? We have a fielder who, as he is gaining control of a "loose ball", is indisputably and unintentionally "hindered" by a member of the offense while not attempting to make a play (at least according to the J/R criteria).

There is no way that this is properly ruled interference with the R2 called out.

There remains the question of the "hindering" offensive player and whether or not he was properly out of the dugout.

For the sake of argument, let's say he was improperly out of the dugout. While there is precedent for judging "intention" solely for the fact that a player is not "doing what he's supposed to do", in this case it does not justify an interference/out call (since no "play" was hindered). The proper ruling would be a warning followed by ejection for a subsequent offense.

Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

JM

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by CoachJM
While I believe that it's nearly impossible to comment definitively on a possible interference situation without having seen the play, it seems to me that, as described, there is no way that "interference" is the proper call in this situation.

The principles behind the rules addressing interference protect the defense from "hindrance" by any member of the offensive team in the defense's attempt to make a play. But, the degree of protection varies by the situation.

If the defense is attempting a play on a batted ball, the protection is nearly absolute, with a few very specific exceptions.

If the defense is attempting to field a thrown ball, there is a lesser degree of protection, and any member of the offense who is "doing what he's supposed to" is excused from hindrance unless his action that hinders is judged "intentional" by the umpire.

If the defense is "chasing a loose ball", they have an even lesser degree of protection, and only blatantly intentional acts by a member of the offense are liable to be called for interference.

And, at least according to J/R, the defense must be attempting to make a play in order for the interference call to result in an out being charged against the defense.

So, what do we have in the situation Carl described? We have a fielder who, as he is gaining control of a "loose ball", is indisputably and unintentionally "hindered" by a member of the offense while not attempting to make a play (at least according to the J/R criteria).

There is no way that this is properly ruled interference with the R2 called out.

There remains the question of the "hindering" offensive player and whether or not he was properly out of the dugout.

For the sake of argument, let's say he was improperly out of the dugout. While there is precedent for judging "intention" solely for the fact that a player is not "doing what he's supposed to do", in this case it does not justify an interference/out call (since no "play" was hindered). The proper ruling would be a warning followed by ejection for a subsequent offense.

Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

JM

Coach: I think it's a very well-written post. But I wish you hadn't said: Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

I've copied it in red because that's what it is, a red flag. (grin) Those people here who hate rats will seize upon that one sentence and miss the reasoned response before it.

I might as well reveal the interpretation I gave my umpires, which is: "Play on."

My main question was: What the heck was R2 doing while that ball was "trickling" [the umpire's word] toward the dugout?

The boy was in the dugout, and he tripped, and he fell on the catcher.

As you say: "We have a fielder who, as he is gaining control of a 'loose ball,' is indisputably and unintentionally 'hindered' by a member of the offense while not attempting to make a play (at least according to the J/R criteria)."

I said the same thing, though not nearly so eloquently as you. As I recall, it was a phone call very late at night, and my response was: "That ain't interference."

To keep the record straight, let me say that the umpire had ruled interference and called out R2.

Naturally, he got away with it.

Your ruling and mine fall under the rubric of "burnt siena." Everybody saw the player fall on the catcher while a runner was advancing. Everybody reacts and thinks that's automatically interference, even the player's coach. They are seeing "brown."

When you and I don't make a call, there's going to be a small firestorm. We have made an unusual call on a usual occurrence (contact between player and fielder), and our "audience" expects something to happen.

BTW: I'm sorry you're just a coach. I could use you in my association. Drop me an email, please.

And don't wave that flag in front of the rat killers.

[mbyron]

Excellent short summary of the classes of interference. Classifying them according to batted ball, thrown ball, and misplayed ball is helpful. Thank you.

[Macaroo]

Just curious:
If this is the case, then when would OBR 7.11 be in effect?

"The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Penalty: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on which the play is being made shall be declared out.

In the stated play, perhaps he is not trying for a batted or thrown ball (if it matters, but this is not clear). Also, the penalty mentions a "play" being made, but the rule just describes fielder attempting to field the ball. I realize it is impossible for each rule to be clarified exactly, and there are many ifs and buts unexplained.

In "real life" I probably would have had a no call here and that was my first instinct before I looked at the rule book.
Although Coach's points are well taken, I don't recall language in OBR regarding loose balls, and I can think of a few instances of "unintentional" interference by the offense being correctly called during a thrown ball situation.

Lastly, I come here to learn all I can and improve as an umpire. I may perhaps misunderstand applying a rule, or "get it wrong" in an attempt to answer posted plays, but in no instance have I personally enforced "fake" rules (as opposed to "actual" ones). The slam on a umpire forum was uncalled for, IMO, and if Carl is impressed and can make you into a fine umpire, good luck to him. You know what they say, "once a...." oh never mind.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Macaroo
Just curious:
If this is the case, then when would OBR 7.11 be in effect?

"The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Penalty: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on which the play is being made shall be declared out.

In the stated play, perhaps he is not trying for a batted or thrown ball (if it matters, but this is not clear). Also, the penalty mentions a "play" being made, but the rule just describes fielder attempting to field the ball. I realize it is impossible for each rule to be clarified exactly, and there are many ifs and buts unexplained.

In "real life" I probably would have had a no call here and that was my first instinct before I looked at the rule book.
Although Coach's points are well taken, I don't recall language in OBR regarding loose balls, and I can think of a few instances of "unintentional" interference by the offense being correctly called during a thrown ball situation.

Lastly, I come here to learn all I can and improve as an umpire. I may perhaps misunderstand applying a rule, or "get it wrong" in an attempt to answer posted plays, but in no instance have I personally enforced "fake" rules (as opposed to "actual" ones). The slam on a umpire forum was uncalled for, IMO, and if Carl is impressed and can make you into a fine umpire, good luck to him. You know what they say, "once a...." oh never mind.

Coach: I told you so. (grin) Perhaps no one recognized your irony. I thought it was pretty funny and chastised you. Macroo bit.

Macaroo: The player in the dugout couldn't vacate the space because it was in front of the dugout and he can't be there - and he wasn't. "Vacate the space" is there to prevent an offensive player from interfering and claiming he has right to that space. The statute applies to a coach in the box, an on-deck batter in the circle, a batter at the plate on a passed ball/wild pitch with a runner trying to score, players in the bullpen if it's in live territory, etc. A runner does not have to vacate his base, so "any space" is not quite accurate.

The players in OBR used to have to vacate the dugout because fielders used to be able to make catches inside the dugout. The rule hasn't changed, but MLBUM forbids umpires from calling a player out in such a case.

As the coach said, it was unintentional interference with a non-play. An "un" and a "non," when married, create a baby called a "nothing."

BTW: Don't feel bad. I didn't recognize it as irony for several long minutes.

Now, if it wasn't irony; that is, if he wasn't trolling, then....

[Macaroo]

Carl, thanks for the clarification on that play. I did not picture it as the opposing player being in the dug-out, but rather outside of it (like an on-deck batter). Either way a non-call fits.

I DID catch the irony in Coach's statement (he's probably heard a similar version directed at him), just didn't take it as kidding I guess. Hey, kudos to him for getting it right.

[mick]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Coach: I think it's a very well-written post. But I wish you hadn't said: Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

I've copied it in red because that's what it is, a red flag. (grin) Those people here who hate rats will seize upon that one sentence and miss the reasoned response before it.

I might as well reveal the interpretation I gave my umpires, which is: "Play on."
[/QUOTE]

Carl,
I thought I detected a bit of a lop-sided grin in CoachJM's comment about coaches "making up rules" and umpires "enforcing actual rules". I enjoyed that fine understanding and wit.

Regarding your statement of "Play on", why would we not kill the the ball for a subsequent play (ie, R2 attempting home) once the initial play of R2 taking third base had ended, just in the chance that the catcher and the tripped player may yet be entangled?

Thanks.
mick

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by mick

Coach: I think it's a very well-written post. But I wish you hadn't said: Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

I've copied it in red because that's what it is, a red flag. (grin) Those people here who hate rats will seize upon that one sentence and miss the reasoned response before it.

I might as well reveal the interpretation I gave my umpires, which is: "Play on."

Carl,
I thought I detected a bit of a lop-sided grin in CoachJM's comment about coaches "making up rules" and umpires "enforcing actual rules". I enjoyed that fine understanding and wit.

Regarding your statement of "Play on", why would we not kill the the ball for a subsequent play (ie, R2 attempting home) once the initial play of R2 taking third base had ended, just in the chance that the catcher and the tripped player may yet be entangled?

Thanks.
mick


[/QUOTE]Good job on the irony. I'm sorry I missed yours. I can plead only that we're not generally so literate when we're arguing with coaches.

By "Play on," I simply meant there should be no penalty. I'm not convinced the ball should be dead. If we're going to treat the confusion at the dugout as incidental, not worthy of a penalty, why should we stop play?

R3, R2. F1 tries to pick off R2, and the shortstop and runner get tangled up. We don't stop play. We allow the defense to make an out, or the offense to score a run.

Let's just "Play on."

What'ya think?

[mick]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

By "Play on," I simply meant there should be no penalty. I'm not convinced the ball should be dead. If we're going to treat the confusion at the dugout as incidental, not worthy of a penalty, why should we stop play?

R3, R2. F1 tries to pick off R2, and the shortstop and runner get tangled up. We don't stop play. We allow the defense to make an out, or the offense to score a run.

Let's just "Play on."

What'ya think? [/QUOTE]

Carl,
I sense a slight difference between the plays.

On the pick off play, all the players are where they "should be" when the incidental contact is manifested; but on the pass ball, the player, who went on the trip last fall, was somewhere he "should not have been".

Given that the incidental contact with the catcher did not "apparently affect the play" at third, there is a potential (I didn't see the play very well.) that the catcher could have been disadvantaged by prolonged contact, by slight or severe injury or by otherwise having been hindered by the accident.

By not calling "Time", we have left open the door for additional ugliness due to an impotent act.

By killing the play, we have now protected that defense from a subsequent unfair disadvantage that may have been gained by an accidental player being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we have ensured safety and fairness, with no need for toilet paper.

mick

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by mick

By "Play on," I simply meant there should be no penalty. I'm not convinced the ball should be dead. If we're going to treat the confusion at the dugout as incidental, not worthy of a penalty, why should we stop play?

R3, R2. F1 tries to pick off R2, and the shortstop and runner get tangled up. We don't stop play. We allow the defense to make an out, or the offense to score a run.

Let's just "Play on."

What'ya think?

Carl,
I sense a slight difference between the plays.

On the pick off play, all the players are where they "should be" when the incidental contact is manifested; but on the pass ball, the player, who went on the trip last fall, was somewhere he "should not have been".

Given that the incidental contact with the catcher did not "apparently affect the play" at third, there is a potential (I didn't see the play very well.) that the catcher could have been disadvantaged by prolonged contact, by slight or severe injury or by otherwise having been hindered by the accident.

By not calling "Time", we have left open the door for additional ugliness due to an impotent act.

By killing the play, we have now protected that defense from a subsequent unfair disadvantage that may have been gained by an accidental player being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we have ensured safety and fairness, with no need for toilet paper.

mick
[/QUOTE]I wouldn't throw you out of my association for that argument. But "both were they were supposed to be" isn't the final arbiter every time.

In my play, the catcher was certainly where he was supposed to be -- keeping the ball alive at the lip of the dugout. The offensive player was completely in the dugout, out of harm's way, until he tripped, probably on the hull of a sunflower seed.

I've only talked on the phone to the umpire who faced the play and called interference. I haven't probed. He's supposed to be at today's 4-man mechanics clinic. (1:00 to 4:30: We're getting ready for the play-offs and it's state mandated training for anyone who wants to move along the food chain.)

More later today. I hope.

[Tim C]

Carl commented:

" . . . you're just a coach"

I smell a slight hint of Limburger here.

I doubt if the poster is "just a coach."

Of course that is just my opinion . . . you know me and rats.

BTW, I thought the "making up rules" comment was quite funny.