Interference - Judgement, Rules Application, Both

[UmpJM]

I have participated in a number of discussions on this forum that have touched upon the subject of what is and is not a properly protestable erroneous call by an umpire. Most commonly, this involves a "non-call" of runner interference.

I have seen differing opinions on whether or not it could be proper to appeal and/or protest such a decision by the umpires.

What say you?

(Edited to add...)

I set up the poll so that if you choose to respond, you may select more than one choice if you feel it is appropriate. I have tried to include all of the positions I remember being expressed on the question as options.

[mcrowder]

The only way you're going to win a protest on something like this, is if you go ask umpire what he saw, and WHAT HE SAW is interference, but he's not calling it. You'll likely need him to even say something that indicates he is misapplying the rule. Something like, "No, the runner has the right of way when a fielder is fielding a batted ball - no interference", after admitting he saw contact and the contact prevented a play.

Not an easy one... but possible if he saw what you saw, and is just screwing up the rule.

[SanDiegoSteve]

If the umpire says "I judge it that there was not interference" you cannot protest under the guise of a rule being misapplied.

If the umpire says "running into a fielder who is trying to field a batted ball is not interference, coach" then you can and should protest the call as a rule has been misapplied.

[mcrowder]

Yeah, what he said.

[mcrowder]

Who voted that "a non-call cannot be appealled or protested?!?!?!"

Catcher sets up on home plate with the ball, and R1 plows her, Pete Rose style. F2 drops the ball and umpire rules safe. You go to discuss the lack of an interference call or ejection of the player, and the umpire says, "That's baseball coach, the runner can do that."

That's a definite protestable non-call.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Who voted that "a non-call cannot be appealled or protested?!?!?!"

Catcher sets up on home plate with the ball, and R1 plows her, Pete Rose style. F2 drops the ball and umpire rules safe. You go to discuss the lack of an interference call or ejection of the player, and the umpire says, "That's baseball coach, the runner can do that."

That's a definite protestable non-call.

Wasn't me.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Who voted that "a non-call cannot be appealled or protested?!?!?!"

btdt did

for some reason, it shows who voted for what. ive never seen that on a forum ever. EDIT: its set to be a public poll so you can see who voted what, but ive never seen that option before.

[DG]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Who voted that "a non-call cannot be appealled or protested?!?!?!"

Catcher sets up on home plate with the ball, and R1 plows her, Pete Rose style. F2 drops the ball and umpire rules safe. You go to discuss the lack of an interference call or ejection of the player, and the umpire says, "That's baseball coach, the runner can do that."

That's a definite protestable non-call.

Malicious contact is umpire judgement and not protestable.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by DG

Malicious contact is umpire judgement and not protestable.

I find myself in agreement with DG's assertion in regards to malicious contact.

The reason I do is that, unlike Interference, the rules do not provide any objective criteria that an umpire could misapply in determining what is and is not "malicious contact". By rule, it is left entirely up to the umpire's judgement.

I might not LIKE the umpire's call in mcrowder's hypothetical; I might think it was a "really bad" call; but, as hard as I try, I can't conceive of any way that I could validly protest it.

JM