Interference or Not???

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

We have a new Windy! WWTB, you are hereby dethroned! Wanna know why we have a new condescention champion? "You seen." You intentionally repeated a poster's bad grammar in your response in another thread, and immediately I knew what you were all about. You thought that would pass by unnoticed, but nope!

In this case, just because F6 contacted the runner, there could be another explanation, such as F6 initiated the contact and was intentionally trying to get an interference call because he knew he couldn't make the play. I'm not going to use pithy parenthesis to illustrate my point, however.

You weren't there, but you feel it is okay to essentially tell dacodee that he blew the call. There are instances of contact which are neither obstruction nor interference, but simply contact.

If you came out on me and started running that smack along with the parenthetical comments, you would get run, and your perfect record would then end.

(Any grammatical or spelling errors left in the quoted material are not meant to disparage the original author. I won't say the same about my own post.)

SDS,

I'm pretty sure you are misreading CoachJM's intention in this board. Unlike some of our posters, I see no evidence that he cares even a little bit about winning arguments or impressing the other readers of this board.

Note that mcrowder told the OP that his ruling was wrong, and that dacodee accepted that "My partner and I botched that one" in the third post of this thread. Dacodee also doesn't seem to have indicated offense taken at CoachJM's replies. There is general agreement that the original call may have been wrong.

I think that CoachJM wants to "win" arguments on the field, and this board is basically a research project for him. He gets to see how we talk about handling situations, where common holes in umpires' rules knowledge are, and how arrogant and insecure we can be.

Of course, it's a two way street. I'm personally impressed with his rules knowledge; he often authoritatively answers rules questions. More importantly, he gives us a view into the other side of the umpire/coach dynamics, and I've found that valuable. (I've never understood the desire to run rats off this board. I have to deal with rats on the field; I'd prefer to understand them.)

As far as I know, this is the first time he's actually suggested play-acting a situation with an umpire, and that might be fun too.

He's just part of how this board has helped me. FWIW, I don't respond to a coach on the field until I've thought about Tee (answer in five words or less), HHH (many coaches are smart after all), CoachJM (don't give the coach a bad rule interpretation to protest about). I rather wish more of the coaches I met were like him.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

(Any grammatical or spelling errors left in the quoted material are not meant to disparage the original author. I won't say the same about my own post.)

SDS,

I'm pretty sure you are misreading CoachJM's intention in this board. Unlike some of our posters, I see no evidence that he cares even a little bit about winning arguments or impressing the other readers of this board.

Note that mcrowder told the OP that his ruling was wrong, and that dacodee accepted that "My partner and I botched that one" in the third post of this thread. Dacodee also doesn't seem to have indicated offense taken at CoachJM's replies. There is general agreement that the original call may have been wrong.

I think that CoachJM wants to "win" arguments on the field, and this board is basically a research project for him. He gets to see how we talk about handling situations, where common holes in umpires' rules knowledge are, and how arrogant and insecure we can be.

Of course, it's a two way street. I'm personally impressed with his rules knowledge; he often authoritatively answers rules questions. More importantly, he gives us a view into the other side of the umpire/coach dynamics, and I've found that valuable. (I've never understood the desire to run rats off this board. I have to deal with rats on the field; I'd prefer to understand them.)

As far as I know, this is the first time he's actually suggested play-acting a situation with an umpire, and that might be fun too.

He's just part of how this board has helped me. FWIW, I don't respond to a coach on the field until I've thought about Tee (answer in five words or less), HHH (many coaches are smart after all), CoachJM (don't give the coach a bad rule interpretation to protest about). I rather wish more of the coaches I met were like him.

I've been dealing with coaches for many moons now. This one has rubbed me the wrong way. Rich Ives, on the other hand, does not rub me the wrong way, and he is a rules maven too.

JM intentionally used a poster's exact bad grammar (which I know JM knows the correct grammar) in a response on a different thread. I think he believes that nobody is noticing his condescention, and I'm just doing a Robert DiNero "I'm watching you, Focker" kind of thing.

Mcrowder was saying that the coach should have been run for bringing out the rules, and that is what I thought dacodee was saying when he spoke of botching the call, not the interference, since he asked our opinion about the interference call. From the information supplied originally, it was difficult to see the play clearly, as it was ambiguous at best.

I don't find play-acting a situation with a coach to be amusing at all. And I did not say that I wanted to run JM off the board. I said he would get run if he came to me on a ballfield with the smack he was running from that post.

Also, please remember that interference is completely a judgment call, and the coach trying to turn it into a rules misinterpretation by bringing out a rule book is totally unacceptable. If the umpire said that it isn't interference for the runner to fail to avoid a fielder, then the coach can protest. If the umpire says that in his judgment, there was no interference, there can be absolutely no protest at all.