Interp of the Week #3 - ANSWER

[Jim Porter]

PLAY: The batter smacks the ball down into the soft dirt, and it dribbles slowly up the first baseline. The batter is off with contact, and the catcher is close on his heels. The BR avoids contact with the ball as he passes it, while F2 follows closely behind the BR. As F2 reaches down to glove the ball, the BR's heel hits F2's glove during the BR's back-stride, and the tripped BR falls flat on his face. F2 picks up the ball and tags the BR, who's still lying in a heap on the ground.

Your call?

RULING: Call obstruction and award the batter-runner first base.

It was a tight race this week. The winner is Warren Willson, and an Honorable Mention goes to Umpyre007.

(Umpyre007 almost had it all, except one sentence in which he said, "any time the BR is tripped from behind it is obstruction," which, unfortunately, does not prove out completely.)

Warren has supplied all of the information, including the very play from JEA which was the catalyst for Interp of the Week #3.

This play illustrates the importance of the concept of fielder privilege, as well as our recognition of it on the ball field.

As we all know, a fielder is privileged when he is judged to be in the act of making a play on a batted or thrown ball. Such a privileged fielder cannot be guilty of obstruction.

However, a catcher is not privileged when a ball is batted around the plate area, and during the batter-runner's initial advance to first base. Instead, a special status exists in which any unintentional contact between the two is normally incidental.

This special status exists when the batter-runner has begun his advance toward first, as long as the batter-runner is doing what he is supposed to be doing (J/R, BRD). In this scenario, however, the batter-runner had begun his advance, and then passed by the catcher. The special status had ended, and the batter-runner was illegally obstructed by the unprivileged catcher.

As far as Umpyre007's assertion that all trips from behind are obstruction, he is mostly correct. Sometimes, with a privileged fielder, the runner could trip himself from behind on the privileged fielder causing interference. Had this week's situation occurred elsewhere on the diamond, the runner might be out for interference instead, since it was his heel which initiated the contact. It is important who intitiates the contact when a runner is tripped from behind by a privileged fielder.

However, the wisdom of Umpyre007's input to this thread should not go unrecognized. In the Pro's, anytime contact is initiated by a privileged fielder which trips a runner from behind, it is considered intentional and obstruction - period. This solves the problem of judging intent in a play which just begs a fielder to trip a runner. It keeps the fielder from being able to fool the umpires into believing his contact was unintentional.

[Rich Ives]

This is a good illustration of the problem with rules and their interpretations between managers and umpires.

Managers have the rule book (only a few of which may have been read I realize, but not relevant.) Managers do not have JEA or J/R, have most likely never heard of them, and, in any event only J/R is available to them if they know how to get it and want to spend the $$.

Problem 1:

Rule 2.00: "Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impeded the progress of any runner."

This drives the first problem - the manager will charge out and say "the catcher was in the act of fielding the ball, how can you call obstruction."

Problem 2:

Rule 7.09(l) Comments: "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is generally no violation and nothing should be called. . . only in very flagrant and violent cases . . . intentionally trip . . ."

Again, a manager, with only a rule book, will again charge out spouting the "flagrant - intentional" line.

Protest Time (LL Oriented)

In LL at least, if the manager elects to protest, the protest committee will have only a rule book and maybe the OBR book and "The Right Call." "The Right Call" briefly discusses when to call obstruction but has nothing furthering the definition of it. OBR book adds the 7.09(l) comments to the mix.

Odds are the umpire will be found in error based on a) catcher was in act, b) not flagrant or violent and c) trip not intentional.

The umpire will be really POed.

The manager will think an umpire finally "got his."


[Edited by Rich Ives on Mar 16th, 2001 at 10:11 AM]

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
This is a good illustration of the problem with rules and their interpretations between managers and umpires.

Managers have the rule book (only a few of which may have been read I realize, but not relevant.) Managers do not have JEA or J/R, have most likely never heard of them, and, in any event only J/R is available to them if they know how to get it and want to spend the $$.

Problem 1:

Rule 2.00: "Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impeded the progress of any runner."

This drives the first problem - the manager will charge out and say "the catcher was in the act of fielding the ball, how can you call obstruction."

Problem 2:

Rule 7.09(l) Comments: "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is generally no violation and nothing should be called. . . only in very flagrant and violent cases . . . intentionally trip . . ."

Again, a manager, with only a rule book, will again charge out spouting the "flagrant - intentional" line.

Protest Time (LL Oriented)

In LL at least, if the manager elects to protest, the protest committee will have only a rule book and maybe the OBR book and "The Right Call." "The Right Call" briefly discusses when to call obstruction but has nothing furthering the definition of it. OBR book adds the 7.09(l) comments to the mix.

Odds are the umpire will be found in error based on a) catcher was in act, b) not flagrant or violent and c) trip not intentional.

The umpire will be really POed.

The manager will think an umpire finally "got his."


[Edited by Rich Ives on Mar 16th, 2001 at 10:11 AM]

Rich,

Life is tough.

There are around 100 errors, omissions, incorrect rulings, disused rules, disorganized rules, redundant rules, contradictory rules, and just plain wrong rules throughout the OBR. For each and every one of them, there is the risk of an OBR-savvy coach entering the field and calling us on it. Furthermore, there is an equal risk of an amateur protest committee overturning our correct decision based on the flawed language of the OBR. It's a problem.

But that doesn't mean you throw away authoritative opinion. That doesn't mean you make what you know to be an inherently wrong decision just because some coach is going to enter the field or an ignorant protest committee may overturn your decision.

Make the right call, get educated about the OBR, know the history, spirit, and intent, and you will always be able to explain a rhubarb so everyone understands it. If they don't, life is tough; umpiring is tough.

I'm in my 21st year of umpiring. I have thousands upon thousands of games under my belt. I have never seen a protest go to committee. I don't worry about protests.

[Rich Ives]

I'm not arguing the correcness of the call. This is just a general vent directed at no one in particular.

I'm not arguing that your job is to rule by precedent (case law in the legal prefession.) That's how things are done here.


What disturbs me is that, for this and many other interpretations, there is a mass of official rulings and accepted interpretations that are NOT AVAILABLE to the managers. It's the functional equivalent of going to court with a copy of the law but not having access to the case law. In court we have our own advocate who is supposed to keep up on the case law. Are managers supposed to hire an umpire to sit in the dugout and advise them of the rules interpretations?


Furthermore, while some interpretations make sense, others don't.

Some have seemingly good rationale. Example: B-R misses first - beats the throw - treat as missed base.

Some seem to be of the "That don't make no sense Joe" variety. Example: Overunning first on a walk. A strict reading (and the LL and "Knotty Problems" interp) is that there is no exception in the rules. However, someone somewhere said "That doesn't make sense, he doesnt NEED to ocerrun first, let's call him out." Voila! Can't overrun on a walk now.

Some seem to be matters of umpire convenience. "I don't want to decide intent so I'll just always assume it was there."


Next time the thought "dumb coach" crosses an umpires mind, he should ask himself when and how the manager ever had the opportunity to learn the interpretation.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
What disturbs me is that, for this and many other interpretations, there is a mass of official rulings and accepted interpretations that are NOT AVAILABLE to the managers. It's the functional equivalent of going to court with a copy of the law but not having access to the case law. In court we have our own advocate who is supposed to keep up on the case law. Are managers supposed to hire an umpire to sit in the dugout and advise them of the rules interpretations?

I agree that most managers are not aware of these interpretations, Rich, but then neither are "most" umpires. They are equally available to both groups, but with a few notable exceptions (yourself included) managers don't frequent internet message boards in the same way that some umpires do. Learning the rules and their interpretations is only, apparently, a small part of the manager's thinking when it comes to taking his team to the top. Those here who know and value the interpretations of PBUC, JEA and J/R are well and truly in the minority of umpires, too!

There is evidence for this lack of interest in rules among coaches/managers in my own country's coaching development program. There is literally NO provision for rules knowledge to be either taught or examined when an individual is advancing through the various coaching levels. A coach can progress right to the top of the formal structure of coaching expertise without being taught or examined on a single rule of the game. If the individual doesn't seek that knowledge out for themselves, as you have done, then it simply isn't provided. That doesn't mean it isn't available.

Although I realise your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you mentioned hiring umpires to sit in the dugout and provide interpretations, some coaches/managers already adopt a parallel strategy; they use the knowledge and experience of a particular player or assistant to fill the gaps. Unfortunately, that strategy also falls far short of the knowledge that the above average official possesses.

Furthermore, while some interpretations make sense, others don't.

Some have seemingly good rationale. Example: B-R misses first - beats the throw - treat as missed base.

Some seem to be of the "That don't make no sense Joe" variety. Example: Overunning first on a walk. A strict reading (and the LL and "Knotty Problems" interp) is that there is no exception in the rules. However, someone somewhere said "That doesn't make sense, he doesnt NEED to ocerrun first, let's call him out." Voila! Can't overrun on a walk now.

Some seem to be matters of umpire convenience. "I don't want to decide intent so I'll just always assume it was there."

On the interpretation about overrunning on a walk, I have to disagree that the rationale is as apparently subjective and disconnected as you claim. Even your LL and Knotty problems interpretations would acknowledge that any attempt to advance beyond 1st puts the runner who has overrun the base in jeopardy. All this interpretation does is to declare that since the batter-runner did not NEED to run to acquire 1st base on the walk, because the batter-runner was not in jeopardy while acquiring 1st base, the overrunning of the base MUST be prima facie evidence of the batter-runner's intent to advance thus putting him in jeopardy when he overruns the bag.

Remember, Rich, that this is a PRO interpretation and not a LL or low level amateur ruling. That should be born in mind any time it looks like the interpretation is not a logical as you would wish it to be from your own social source of reference.

Next time the thought "dumb coach" crosses an umpires mind, he should ask himself when and how the manager ever had the opportunity to learn the interpretation.

I dare say this approach is reserved for those times when coaches argue that the hands are part of the bat, or some other equally "obvious" piece of mythology. I for one would never suggest a coach is dumb only because he doesn't know the latest PBUC ruling on 4th out appeals following a force play tag past the base. Nevertheless, you point is taken that coaches may not be in the same position as umpires to be aware that such interpretations exist. That's not a problem of availability but rather a question of environment.

Cheers,

[JJ]

And obviously for the coach, the old saying fits - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". To coach's credit, however, in situations where they have not been satisfied by my explanation (as if that would EVER happen!), the good ones have gone home, gotten out the book AND gotten on the phone to umpires they respect who are in the know - and have not only satisfied THEIR curiosity, but have educated themselves as well...

[Rich Ives]

The stuff's available?? Please post the ISBN numbers for JEA and J/R so we can order them. Thanks.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The stuff's available?? Please post the ISBN numbers for JEA and J/R so we can order them. Thanks.

Well, at least EQUALLY "available". (grin)

JEA is currently out of print. There was a revised CD-ROM edition expected this year, but I believe that has been put on hold until the dispute with MLB and the rules revision has been resolved. Neither umpires nor managers can get a NEW version of this rendering of the rules and their history at this point in time. You can, however, put a copy on backorder through Amazon.com and hope.

J/R is currently available from Rick Roder at a cost of $25.00 plus postage. You can email him at [email protected] or I understand you can write to him c/- Post Office, Remsen, Iowa 51050. Someone else may post a more complete mail address.

Cheers,