Interference or Not???

[SanDiegoSteve]

My game is under the lights tonight, so I have plenty of time for the conversation. Oh, BTW, you added an extra digit to your game total by mistake!

[Xtopher_66]

"First and Foremost Interference is a JUDGEMENT call. Regardless of what happened if in the JUDGEMENT of the umpires there was no interference then there was no interference."

Correct.

However I come out and ask the ump how he arrived at his call and he says "in my judgement the runner was in the baseline and therefore cannot be called for interference".

Hello - Sounds like a great time to show the umpire the correct rule (even after the game, heck, just so he get's it correct next time). Happened at my sons 12 yr old game last week. Ruling was wrong but in my favor so I was not asking the ump myself. That is what he told the other teams coach. I actually told the other teams coach after the inning that the ump did not get it right and that the coach could use my rule book to show him if he liked. He didn't take me up on it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Xtopher_66

I actually told the other teams coach after the inning that the ump did not get it right and that the coach could use my rule book to show him if he liked. He didn't take me up on it.

Sounds like one of the smarter coaches, and one of the stupidest umpires.

Just protest the ruling, don't try to show the umpire anything. Make him come back and rework your upheld protest. That'll learn him!

[UmpJM]

Xtopher_66,

Do NOT bring your rulebook onto the field! You are showing up the umpire by doing so, and now that you know that, you would deserve to be ejected from the game if you did so.

If you feel that the umpire made a call that:

1. involved a misapplication of the rules

AND

2. materially disadvantaged your team,

then, when the continuous action of the play has relaxed, ask for time.

When it is granted, politely ask the umpire who made the call for a clarification of his call. Personally, I would never ask an umpire "how he arrived at his call". Ultimately, it is none of your business, he has no obligation to tell you, and there's a good chance you'll piss him off just by asking.

There are really two things you need to know:

1. What the umpire's call really was (I have learned from personal experience that what I thought the umpire called is not always what he really did call).

2. What the umpire saw.

If the umpire saw something different than what you saw (for example, you saw a collision between the F6 & the F2, but the umpire didn't; or you thought the ball was still in front of the F6 at the time of the collision, but the umpire thought the ball was already past the F6) and it makes your rules issue invalid, then you simply drop it and return to the dugout.

If the umpire called what you thought AND saw pretty much the same thing you did, simply state in plain language, to the best of your ability, why you think he may have misapplied the rules in making his call. You don't have to know the rule number & you don't have to recite the rule verbatim. And neither he nor you needs to read the rule out of the book. In many (if not most) cases, you would need to read multiple rules, possibly refer to an interpretation manual, and figure out how they all fit together to "prove" the proper application.

It ain't gonna happen in the middle of a baseball game, and it shouldn't.

If you've stated your case to the best of your ability and the umpire finds you unpersuasive, simply do as SD Steve suggests, and "Just protest the ruling, don't try to show the umpire anything." Then return to your dugout.

A couple of other things...

LilLeaguer has a pretty good read on my motivation for participating on this board. I come here primarily to learn and thereby become a better coach. I'm interested in learning:

1. The rules and their proper application in real game situations.

2. Umpires' perspectives on how to call games and deal with situations.

3. How to be more effective in persuading an umpire to reverse his call when I believe he has misapplied the rules in making the call in a way that disadvantaged my team.

I am also happy to share with others, who may not be as far along the learning curve as I am, what I have learned from those who have shared their knowledge with me.

In case you haven't noticed, I also kind of enjoy arguing with umpires. Since I can't really indulge this unfortunate character flaw of mine during games without serious repercussions, I do it in venues such as this. But, I do my best to not argue for the sake of arguing, but rather to arrive at a better understanding of the rules and their proper application. When I am shown to be wrong, and I believe my history on this board attests to this, I am man enough to admit it.

I have other unfortunate tendencies (e.g. long-windedness, uncalled for sarcasm, etc.), but I never believed a condescending attitude to be among them. In fairness, this is probably a difficult thing for one to objectively judge about oneself, so I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize and will try to do better in the future.

A subject of interest to me that was raised on this thread is the fine line between "judgement calls" and "rules misapplications"; so, I started a new thread with a poll to elicit additional commentary and opinion on that specific question. Please share your thoughts & opinions if you are so inclined.

Now for some reason that remains a mystery to me, SanDiegoSteve has chosen to try to "jump down my throat" a couple of times on this thread. So, I would just like to say the following...

[CONDESCENSION ON]
Steve, you ignorant slut,

I find your self-documenting proclivity to initiate and prolong puerile "pissing contests" on this board both annoying and inconsiderate to the membership - not to mention destructive of the purpose.

In my experience, individuals who feel a need to brag about their experience and accomplishments, when no one has expressed the slightest interest in them, generally have a grossly exaggerated sense of their expertise and competence.

For example, how is it that an umpire who has officiated over 3,000 games, some number of them perfectly, I might add, doesn't even know that 7.09(d) only applies to a batter, not a batter-runner? Perhaps the distinction is to fine for someone of your mental capacity (no offense intended toward the developmentally disabled). And, of course, a person would actually have to know how to read, which, based on your comments in this thread, is obviously not a strong suit of yours. I mean, everbody else on this thread understood what dacodee meant when he said, "My partner and I botched that one.", and you didn't.

I am neither intimidated nor impressed by your laughably juvenile attempts to bully and discredit me ("Mommy, mommy, CoachJM repeated somebody's grammar mistake on another thread..." (My apologies to the offended party; that was uncalled for on my part, and uncharitable at best)).

Have you gone off your meds again?
[/CONDESCENSION]

I could go on, but I've probably already taken up too much of everyone's time with this already. I do feel that Steve made a couple of valid points on this thread, which I believe I acknowledged. I have also seen him make good contributions on other threads on this board. I'm not sure what "set him off" on this thread, and I really don't give a flying f*^k.

And that's all the pissing I'm going to do in this contest.

JM

[PeteBooth]

However I come out and ask the ump how he arrived at his call and he says "in my judgement the runner was in the baseline and therefore cannot be called for interference".

You are missing the point. You said you were at a game played by 12 yr. olds so you probably had inexperienced umpires.

I do not have to tell you how I arrived at my call, just like you do not have to tell me why you made a pitching change or sent the runner home who was a "dead duck" at the plate.

It's a simple answer: "Skip in My JUDGEMENT the runner DID NOT interfere with the fielder's ability to make a play"

END of Story

If the coach keeps going on an on then they can look up or read any rule they want in the parking lot.

Rule clinics are NOT conducted during the game.

Pete Booth

[mcrowder]

True, Pete, but the coach is certainly allowed to ask us what we saw. If you give the answer you quoted above, then they should head back to the dugout. But if we (or our less experienced brethren) say something like, "Yes, I saw the contact, but the runner is allowed to do that if he's in the baseline", or worse (like one I actually did hear... from partner... "There's no interference because the runner was trying to avoid him and tripped and fell into the fielder - the contact was unintentional"), then the coach is certainly within his rights to protest.

I can understand that since you work at your craft and have a pretty solid rules knowledge, that it is probably a bit on the offensive side for a coach to ask you what you saw... but we must keep in mind that all of our fellows out there do not have a full understanding of ALL the rules, and if a coach comes out calmly to ask us what we saw, there's nothing wrong with telling him.

I agree that the field is NO PLACE for a rules clinic though. I also agree with "Show me the book and you're gone."

[SanDiegoSteve]

The following quotation is from Coach JM:

In my experience, individuals who feel a need to brag about their experience and accomplishments, when no one has expressed the slightest interest in them, generally have a grossly exaggerated sense of their expertise and competence.

For example, how is it that an umpire who has officiated over 3,000 games, some number of them perfectly, I might add, doesn't even know that 7.09(d) only applies to a batter, not a batter-runner? Perhaps the distinction is to fine for someone of your mental capacity (no offense intended toward the developmentally disabled). And, of course, a person would actually have to know how to read, which, based on your comments in this thread, is obviously not a strong suit of yours. I mean, everbody else on this thread understood what dacodee meant when he said, "My partner and I botched that one.", and you didn't.

I know you can't be saying that you know and understand every single rule and its application. I, unlike you apparently, learn new things all the time. The real reason I didn't pick up on the subtle difference in the rule is that it never happens in real life! It is a TWP that has not occurred in, yes, the over 3,200 games that I have officiated over the past 20 years.

If you think there is something wrong with listing (not bragging) experience and accomplishments as a credential validation for addressing a subject, then you are sadly mistaken. One could ask you why you feel the need to say the things you do, but nobody is doing that, are they?

You know, if every umpire here knew every single rule and its application, we would have no need for this forum. But, the reality is that many good umpires have questions about some of the rules of the game, many of which are poorly written, and subject to many interpretations. JEA and J/R often disagree about interpretations, and both often don't square up with MLBUM or NAPBL manuals.

By my letting certain people know that this isn't my first rodeo, and that I didn't just fall off the umpire truck yesterday does not mean that I am exaggerating a damn thing. I am brutally honest, tell it like it is, and have no need to tell wild tales. Listing ones experience should be required to post here IMO. For example, how many games have you umpired, coach? Or, better yet, how many have you coached? 12 years @ what, 40-50 games per year. Still less than 1,000 games, I would say. But I don't hold your lack of experience against you, so why do you feel you need to comment about my vastly superior experience? I umpired between 175 (the low) and 228 (the high) games a year my first 16 years in the business. Umpiring wasn't a hobby in those years, it was an avocation.

And no, the distinction is not to fine (great command of the English language there, Skippy) for someone of my mental capacity, as mine is quite high. I won't further bore you with the details (since you would consider it bragging anyway). There were two distinct calls which were blown in the original situation (now that it has been finally explained properly):

1) the interference non-call, and
2) not ejecting the coach.

Since dacodee originally asked our opinions about the call, and he was, at the time, convinced that it was not interference, I believed him to be referring to the non-ejection of the coach, and not the interference. I feel that's a fairly honest mistake on my part, and not subject to your ridicule.

Actually, reading is quite a strong suit of mine, and since you don't know me from Adam, I am wondering where you get off making such an ignorant statement. Well, some people were raised, and some people were jerked up.

[DG]

Originally Posted by dacodee

I'm working the plate... Man on 1st and 2nd, with two out. My partner is in the C position. Ground ball to the right of shortstop. Runner from second trys to avoid the fielder. As soon as the runner passes him, the shortstop runs into the back of the runner as he's charging the ball. Both, partner and myself have no call. Defensive coach goes crazy and whips out the rule book.

Question 1: Do you have interference on the runner and call the batter out?

Question 2: Some umps don't ever want coach to bring rule book on the field. Do you toss him or let him read what the book says.

As a side note, defensive team was losing 13-1 in the bottom of the 4th. Game was called after 5 and a half.

DAC

If a fielder runs up a runner's *ss after he has passed by I have no interference.

If I had interference, on a better example, runner is out and batter awarded 1B.

If a coach brings a rule book onto the field he better have his finger on the rule he wants to discuss. I can not recall ever having this happen though.