Interference or Not???
 

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 fielder was legitimately trying to field the ball, and not just running into the runner to try to draw a call, this is interference. The rules say the runner must avoid ... not attempt to avoid. The only way the play you describe is not interference is on the off chance that it was obvious the fielder was no longer playing the ball, and initiated contact intentionally.

On number two, it's hard to toss a coach for bringing out a rulebook when you actually did botch a call... but yeah - if this guy comes out of the dugout pointing at a rulebook, he's gone.

Thanks a lot!

mcrowder, you've helped to clear my confused brain... My partner and I botched that one. I ump in NJ and PA. In NJ, it's an unwritten rule that you toss the coach when he brings a rule book out. In PA though, I've spoken to many and they accept this.


Thanks...

I think that's an unwritten rule all over. :)

"an unwritten rule that you toss the coach when he brings a rule book out"

This is crazy. While the umpire may feel that his feelings are being hurt what the heck is wrong with trying to get a rule correct? If the coach and the ump check the rule out someone will probably, gulp, learn something!

My kids play Hot Stove Baseball in Ohio and we routinely have umpires that are 15 & 16 years old. Very often they don't know the rules and bringing out a rulebook makes sense to me when I know right where the rule is and can help.

Maybe you can get away with that when you have youngsters calling your games. Try it with an experienced umpire and if he has a clue about proper decorum, he's going to run you. We don't want or need a rat coming out waving a rule book in our face to show us up.


Tim.

Tim
I'm not talking about waving a rule book and shouting insults at you. That's obviously too much and I would expect to get run out of the park by a seasoned umpire.

But help me out. As a coach I see some rulings that either don't seem right to me or sometimes I outright know are wrong.

What is the best way to get you to explain to me your ruling without pissing you off during a game? Can I approach you at all? Suppose you just told me that the dropped third strike rule is not in effect in a two out bases loaded situation. Can I pull the rulebook out of my back pocket and show you?

Your best recourse as a coach if you feel a rule is being missapplied is to calmly discuss it with the umpire. If, after the discussion, you still feel strongly that you received an incorrect ruling you can ask if the two of you can look it up together. That might get you some rythem from a veteran umpire. I can tell you from my perspective that I will not stop a game to look up a rule unless I'm really unsure. Even then I'll only do it to avoid a potential protest. As umpires we're taught to keep a rule book nearby. Most guys will have one in their gear bag or car just in case they need to consult it. It's been a long standing and accepted practice that coaches don't bring rule books onto the field. I'm hoping John or Rich will attest to this for you.



Tim.

Follow Tim's advice and calmly talk to the umpire about the possible rule infraction. If that doesn't work, ask the umpire to get a second opinion from his partner. If he refuses and your absolutely sure he made a rules mistake, then tell him you want to protest the game. That should trigger that umpire to talk to his partner before he accepts your protest. If the umpires get together and still don't change their minds, then they will accpet your protest and the league will decide the outcome after the game is completed. As Tim said, rulebooks have to business being on a field unless the umpires, not the coach, see a need for it.

Another thing to consider is whether or not it is a correctable error.
Once the ump calls the batter out he's out, there's no do overs even if you were allowed to pull the book out.
So if it is correctable follow Tim's advice, if is not correctable and it is a rules application issue, you might be better off just indicating your desire to protest.

Showing me up
 

X:

On another thread recently, we talked about ejections and what certain umpires will put up with.

There are lines with every umpire, and some vary, but all well-trained, experienced umpires will give you the heave-ho for certain magic words or acts. According to my training, these acts are certain to get a coach/player dumped:

1. "You suck/are terrible" and variations upon that theme- the idea is that it is a personal insult- notice that I didn't say "You got that call wrong" will get you dumped. It's an important distinction.

2. Artwork in the dirt after a called strike.

3. Cursing me/at me.

4. Any physical contact, direct (bumping) or indirect (spitting, kicking dirt on) with me. Also, charging from the dugout/coach's box aggressively.

5. Audibly cursing at all. By "audibly cursing" I mean where anybody but me can hear. I work, primarily, high school and youth ball.

6. Questioning my integrity- e.g., "it's hard to win against 11," meaning my partner and I have taken the other team's side.

7. Continuing an argument after a warning to stop.

8. Throwing at a batter after being warned, or if, in my judgment, the pitcher went head hunting at all.

9. Malicious contact.

10. Fighting/leaving dugout/position to fight.

This is not an exhaustive list. However, bringing the rulebook out and showing it to me on the field is a combination of 1 and 2 above, and will get you dumped by every umpire I work with. You are not respectfully suggesting I don't know the rule as well as I should, you are publicly displaying your superior rules knowledge to your players and fans. That's showing me up, and it will get you dismissed.

Strikes and outs!

The interference rule itself won't help you on this play. A thorough reading of the manuals with interpretations will. Jaksa/Roder and BRD come to mind. The fielder is protected during his initial attempt to field the ball. These manuals explain when the fielder loses his protection, like when he misplays the ball and attempts to field it beyond his step and reach.

Personally, after spending much time digesting these manuals several times through, I don't believe that one can umpire well without a working knowlege of the interpretations and how the accomplished umpires officiate these plays. So buy J/R and BRD, and dig in!

As for the coach, you guys blew the call. Thus, you need to give the coach more leeway before ejecting him. When a coach makes his initial move toward you on a play where there is good reason for doubt, and there was no intervening play, hold up your hand and tell him that you'll discuss your doubt with your partner. Since interference will kill the play, this was a missed call that you and your partner could have corrected. Just call the runner out and put the other runners on their time-of-pitch bases and the batter-runner on 1B. Again, good working knowlege of the rules and the interpretations will alert you when there is reason to doubt.

Xtopher_66,

Since you seem to be actually bothering to learn the rules, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. It (generally speaking) really pisses off umpires to see a coach bring a rulebook onto the field. For some reason, even though you're probably just trying to be helpful, they interpret this as if you're trying to "show them up" by calling their competence into question - in front of God and everybody. It's kind of considered "poor etiquette".

Now I always bring my rulebook to the games I coach. And it always remains in the dugout - unless the umpire grants explicit permission for its egress (which has actually happened on a few occasions).

Ultimately, it would be the most rare of occasions when a rulebook would even be useful during a game (see insatty's comments regarding interpretations manuals and such).

If you have a reasonable belief that an umpire may have misapplied a rule in making (or not making) a call during the game, in such a way that your team was materially disadvantaged, ask for time. When it is granted, calmly approach the umpire who made (or failed to make) the call. Politely ask him for a clarification. If you still feel his decision was erroneous, state your case in plain language in terms of your understanding of how the rules should have applied to the situation in question. (Remember, it really doesn't matter what you saw; the only thing relevant in this discussion is what the umpire saw. Yeah, I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is.)

If he finds you unpersuasive, inform him that you are protesting, thank him for entertaining your query, and return to your dugout.

JM

[QUOTE=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.

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.

Therefore, what rule is the coach going to show you?

As the coach comes storming onto the field with the rule book it's simple:

Hey Skip on the way to the parking lot read rule 9, have a nice day.

Generally speaking when a coach comes onto the field with a rule-book, most experienced umpires will not give him "the time of day".

Pete Booth

Judging interference is a judgement call, but it is entirely possible that the umpire may say something during your 'clarification discussion' to indicate that the rule is being applied differently. "The runner has the right of way on all plays", or "The fielder has the obligation to avoid a runner, or it's obstruction" would be examples of protestable misapplication of the interference rule.

dacodee,

I'm curious about two things regarding the situation you described:

1. Did you and your partner correct your erroneous "non-call"?

2. Did you or your partner eject the coach who brought the rulebook onto the field?

JM

JM:

1) It really pisses off umpires for a good reason which is:

2) Coaches are not trying to be helpful, they are in fact acting like the rats they are.

3) The reason umpires interpret this as trying to show them up is because that is exactly what the coach is doing. This is not some wild notion umpires have. Bringing out a rule book is indeed calling their competence into question.

4) It is not only considered "poor etiquette," it is extremely poor etiquette.

But thank you for explaining it from a totally biased coach's standpoint. Please let the umpires do this in the future. It is very easy to sit in the dugout and flaunt your knowledge of the rules, and a very different case to actually have to apply these rules in stressful situations. That requires an umpire.

S.D. Steve,

Ummm, I could be mistaken, but I believe that Tim (BigUmp56) asked me to explain this from a coach's perspective (see post #8 on this thread). I was merely trying to comply with the umpire's instruction.

While I would certainly concur that a coach should NOT bring his rulebook onto the field (which I believe I said in my earlier post), it may not be the naive coach's intent to "show up the umpire" were he to do so.

Take Xtopher_66's hypothetical posed in his question to Tim where an umpire has made a gross rule misapplication as an example (I know, would probably never happen in the the "real world"). He asks if it would be OK to show the umpire the rule in the rulebook. It doesn't sound to me like his intent is to "show up" the umpire; rather, it seems to me he is trying to "help" the umpire arrive at the correct ruling.

Tim said it would be OK to "ask" the umpire if they could look it up together. I implicitly concurred with him and then went on to say that it would be a rare occasion when it would even be useful to look in the rulebook and suggested what I believe to be a proper procedure for appealing to an umpire to correct his call should the coach believe the umpire misapplied the rules in making his initial call.

I also fully concur that it is an order of magnitude more difficult to actually apply the rules while umpiring a game than it is to (slightly different analogy) sit in front of a computer, with all kinds of reference materials handy, and discuss how those rules might be properly applied in an abstract, theoretical way.

However, if you want to talk about stressful, try convincing an umpire that he has just made an incorrect call in a game when:

1. He can eject you, pretty much for any reason he feels appropriate.

2. His version of what actually happened is the only one that matters.

3. He is already predisposed to believe his knowledge of the rules is vastly superior to your own (usually, but not always, correctly so).

4. In many cases, he is predisposed to believe that you have the moral character and integrity of a rodent.

It's not only stressful, it's quite difficult to accomplish.

JM

I guess my chief complaint with your post was the phrase, "For some reason...," as if the very thought that this could in any way be considered offensive was out of the question. "Gee, for some unknown reason, these umpires, can't tell ya why, but they somehow don't like it when you bring a rule book out on the field. Go figure." That is how it sounded to me. I was just pointing out that there is a really good reason, that should be perfectly obvious to even the most naive rookie coach.

Coach, do you keep a journal? I'd love to know your batting average on rules arguments won on the field and protests upheld.

LilLeaguer,

I do not keep a journal of my games (although at times I wish I had).

I am in my 12th year of coaching baseball.

In that time, I have formally "protested" two calls - in both cases, my protest was upheld. (I should mention that some leagues I coach in explicitly preclude protests.)

Now, I make it a point to never "argue" with an umpire - well, at least not during a game in which I am coaching.

However, I am not the least bit hesitant to appeal to an umpire to correct his call if I believe he did not properly apply the rules in making his call. I would guess my "success rate" is probably in the neighborhood of 10-15%. I am also pretty "selective" about what calls I even bother to appeal.

I also never "show displeasure" with the umpire's ball/strike calls during the game.

I have never been ejected from a game (yet ;) ).

JM

Coach JM .......................
 

Can you say "condescending" ? I think you can.



Doug

Doug,

HUH??? :confused:

What did I say that was condescending? It certainly wasn't my intent to be so.

I plead not guilty.

JM

I didn't see anything condescending in your posts. They certainly were no less condescending than the posts made by us umpires here.



Tim.

Imho ..........................
 

The tenor of all of your posts in this thread, with all the boldface "keywords" struck me as extremely dismissive and condescending of umpires.

Your mileage may vary.




Doug

Do you keep a game journal? Do you have a lot of ejections?

Yes, I do keep a journal. No, I do not have alot of ejections, but that depends on your definition of "alot" ? Seriously, just two EJ's in the last 215 games I've umpired.

Then again, my hearing's not what it use to be.:D



Doug

Rabbit Eyes?
 

No, 2 ejections does not sound like a lot.

You may have had the equivalent of rabbit ears on your reading glasses. I don't know why CoachJM used bold words, but I didn't read any condescension towards umpires in his post.

LilLeaguer,

FWIW, when I first read your "follow-up" query to Doug, I was ROTFLMAO - just struck me as kind of funny.

However, I really wasn't looking to pick a fight with him (nor am I now), or anyone else for that matter, so I just left it alone.

My use of boldface type in other posts on this thread was merely an (apparently spectacularly unsuccessful) attempt to emphasize certain aspects of my comments, which I believed and intended to be in full agreement with the umpires' advice to the coach to not bring a rulebook onto the field.

I honestly couldn't figure out what Doug found to be condescending in tone, or why S.D. Steve had such a negative reaction to my comments.

Having reread my posts, I would say that the only thing that I wrote that could be fairly considered even mildly condescending was my post addressed to Xtopher_66 - and my intent was not be mean-spirited in any way, but mildly humorous (again, apparently without success).

I did have a point I was trying to make with the umpires. Having been in Xtopher_66's shoes in the past, I can assure you that it is not necessarily a coach's intent to show disrespect to the umpire by bringing a rulebook onto the field.

When I first realized that "rulebook" was not a metaphor and that it might actually be a good idea for me to learn the (real) rules of the game I was theoretically teaching to children, it did not occur to me that bringing a rulebook onto the field would be considered offensive to an umpire. Really.

Once a helpful umpire explained it to me, it made perfect sense. So, I would encourage you as umpires, especially if you do "lower level" games, to not automatically eject a coach for bringing out a rulebook - at least not if he is otherwise behaving as a gentleman. Simply tell him to put it away and inform him that really isn't done. Now if he's acting like a jerk or does it again, by all means toss him. Some people can't learn to modify their behavior unless there are consequences.

JMO.

JM

Breakin' the Rules
 

Agreed. I have seen an umpire "keep the coach in the game" without losing his dignity or the respect of anybody on the field. I, at least, see plenty of ballgames where coaches are not at all familiar with the conventions of baseball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachJM dacodee, I'm curious about two things regarding the situation you described: 1. Did you and your partner correct your erroneous "non-call"? 2. Did you or your partner eject the coach who brought the rulebook onto the field? JM

Hello JM,

1) No, we both simply explained to the coach that we did not have interference on the runner. We kept rummer on third.

2) No ejection either... We let the coach have his say and when he wanted us to look at the book, we kept telling him we're going to play on. It became a one sided conversation because neither one of us were going to change the "no call".

Thanks,

DAC

DAC,

Thanks.

I assume you did not change the call because, at the time, you and your partner felt it was the correct call?

Is there anything the coach could have done differently that might have resulted in you changing the call?

For example, instead of acting like a jerk (which it sounds like he did), he had:

1. calmly requested time and, after granted, politely asked you if you had seen the contact between the runner & fielder (sounds like you did)

2. asked you if, in your judgement, the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the ball at the time of the contact & was the player who had the best play on the ball (sounds like he was)

3. suggested that, as he understood the rules, the runner should be called out for interference because 7.09(l) says he should if he "fails to avoid" the fielder in this situation (which it does).

Would you have done anything differently?

Assuming after all of that, you informed the coach that your initial ruling was going to stand and he then informed you he was protesting your ruling, thanked you for entertaining his appeal, and promptly returned to the dugout. Would you have done anything differently then?

JM

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.

Still Judgment
 

The "fails to avoid" language in 7.09 does not change the fact that it's an umpire's judgment call. That, if for no other reason, is why you don't reverse the call on the coach's barking. The umpires may consult (and in this case it appears they did) and the calling umpire may reverse himself after that consultation, but the very last thing we (and I'm including you in that "we", Coach) want is an umpire who changes judgment calls when a coach doesn't like the call. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out where that will leave a ballgame in pretty short order.

Coach, I respect your profession. Having said that, it reads to me like you don't like how much power we (umpires) have. Years ago, I went to a basketball camp. One of the classroom sessions was presented by a DIII basketball coach, entitled "What Coaches Want from Officials". I listened as he lamented the fact that we were "part-timers", he was a "full-timer", and yet we had all the "power" on the court. That may have been true from the opening tap to the final buzzer, but coaches and ADs have a lot more power over the overall picture than we do. That's the subject for another post. Here's the point: yes, if you are on the field I am working, I can eject you. However, only the most unprofessional of umpires will eject you for "anything he wants to." There are a few of us, a VERY few, who go into a ballgame with a chip on his shoulder. They don't last long (around here, at least) because that umpire will get no good games and not move up and that umpire will usually self-select another part-time job. It's not much fun, for most of us, to yell at people and be yelled at.

With all due respect, the "power", such as it is, is all on your side. Can you IMAGINE, seriously, what would happen if, after an unsuccessful bunt, hit and run, squeeze play, whatever, I, as an umpire, came over to where ever the coach was and said, "That's just poor judgment. Why are you hitting and running in that situation? That's just terrible. You're cheating the kids." What if I just yelled down the third base line after a called third strike, "Been a strike all day! You'd better get your kids to swing at that or I'll sit them down for you!" Lord knows I have wanted, a hundred times in my career, to retort to a coach who is yelling at me, "And I suppose the three errors your players have committed this inning have nothing to do with the fact that you're behind?"

No umpire who did that even once would work again, at least not around these parts. Yet that kind of childish behavior is accepted and even expected from coaches. Outside of ejecting him, which is a one game penalty, he suffers no real adverese consequence. He keeps his job (whether volunteer or paid), and at some levels, he is given a hard time in the media (and maybe from his AD) if he doesn't "work the umps" enough.

I have never coached, and maybe I should. I have tremendous respect for coaches, especially small-school coaches here in my area, who work 60-80 hours a week from August to April. But I think you'd have to admit that there are a lot more jackasses in coaching who are allowed to be jackasses than in officiating.

Strikes and outs!

Funniest stuff Ive seen all week. You'd sooner see world peace than this sequence of events from a coach......heck, why not posit the Second Coming while you are at it? :D

JM,

Knowing what I know now, I would have called interference on the runner. F6 did not intentionally run into the runner. He was just going after the ball.

At the time, I don't think there was anything he could've done for me to change the no-call. I felt the runner did nothing wrong and there was only accidental contact (no harm, play on).

I brought it up in my association meeting and there were mixed opinions. However, no one thought F6 obstructed the runner. Either, no-call or interference on runner. Since there were two outs already, runner's out and inning over.

Thanks,

DAC

You made it sound different in the original post. You even said the runner was trying to avoid the fielder. It sounded as though F6 actually chased down the runner to contact him as he was passing by. The fact that you did not change the call also indicated that you were certain there was no interference. Now you are telling us something different.

Also, it would not be "accidental" contact, it would be perhaps "incidental" contact, which is different.

For example, instead of acting like a jerk (which it sounds like he did), he had:

1. calmly requested time and, after granted, politely asked you if you had seen the contact between the runner & fielder (sounds like you did)

2. asked you if, in your judgement, the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to field the ball at the time of the contact & was the player who had the best play on the ball (sounds like he was)

3. suggested that, as he understood the rules, the runner should be called out for interference because 7.09(l) says he should if he "fails to avoid" the fielder in this situation (which it does).

Would you have done anything differently?

Coach IMO you are missing the point.

Umpires do not owe coaches ANY explanation on judgement calls. This isn't MLB where it's common practice to allow coaches to question anything.

1. calmly requested time and, after granted, politely asked you if you had seen the contact between the runner & fielder (sounds like you did)

I would simply say to you "Skip in MY JUDGEMENT" there was no Interference - END of Story. I would not get into a debate with you about the contact etc. Therefore, Numbers 2/3 above would be moot bcause the conversation wouldn't get that far.

Umpires do not question coaching moves and unless a rule has been mis-applied or mis interpreted we owe the coaches no explanation.

Interference is a Judgement call akin to calling balls / Strikes. We do not offer an explanation other than an occasional "That was outside" when a coach disagrees with a particular pitch and we do not owe him an explanation when we judge that there was no interference.

Pete Booth

It's not about the board.
 

(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.

Thanks SDS...

Try reading the original post again... I made no reference to F6 intentionally running him down. You obviously have nothing constructive to contribute to this post. So, go do a game and report back on how perfect it went.

Really!!! If you don't have anything constructive to post, don't post. There's simply too much negativity in many of these posts.

Have a great weekend All....

DAC

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.

I read your original post over and over, and it still is ambiguous. I have called many a perfect, errorless game over my long career. Who do think you are to tell me what to post? When you come even anywhere close to 3,200 games umpired, you just let me know sonny, then you can talk to me like that. Not until!

I wasn't going to go there, but can't help myself. "Blah, Blah, Blah"... Enough already! I post to get constructive feedback. Not to go back and forth with a bully.

Mcrowdy responded... I blew the call... That's it! Enough said...

Someone once told me that if you know you blew it, don't blow it again. Well SDS, you blew, don't blow again.

Peace!

DAC

Hey, look here....you presumed to tell me what to post. Don't try to spin this into me saying something wrong. I was defending your call, based on your original post. You asked for opinions, and I gave mine. I don't give a rat's a$$ what you post for. I don't owe you any constructive feedback. What are you, some kind of pinko commie? Who made you Lord of the Posts? A bully? I'm no bully, but I don't make posts without putting some thought into them, and I don't appreciate being told what I can and cannot post. If you don't like the comments posted in your little thread, then delete it, okay?

Another thing, I never said that you made a reference to F6 running the runner down, I said that it "sounded as though F6 actually chased down the runner....." Please stop misquoting me.

SDS,

I'd love to continue this conversation, but I've got my 3,201 game to call.

Have a great weekend and don't hurt anybody...

Peace!

DAC

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!

"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.

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!

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

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

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."

The following quotation is from Coach JM:

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.

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.