Didn't come into play, but...

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I do not agree with your position.

You cannot assume that he is trying to anything other than protect himself from being hit by the throw from F2.

It would be stretch for me to even consider that he was interfering.

T

I understand. It is a HTBT sitch. If the player has his arms around his head for protection, that's one thing. If he has his arms outstretched, straight, that is another.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I understand. It is a HTBT sitch. If the player has his arms around his head for protection, that's one thing. If he has his arms outstretched, straight, that is another.

Why?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Matt

Why?

Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.

Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."

The point is, if the player is not playing the game the way everyone else does, he loses the benefit of the doubt. I'm not making any rules up whatsoever. If he does something out of the ordinary, it's gotta make me seriously consider he's doing this intentionally.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

The point is, if the player is not playing the game the way everyone else does, he loses the benefit of the doubt. I'm not making any rules up whatsoever. If he does something out of the ordinary, it's gotta make me seriously consider he's doing this intentionally.

Since this was posted as a FED game, please dont forget that these are teen age players and below. I really dont think you want to place a parameter of "ordinary" on these players.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

[TussAgee11]

B/R running to first base within confines of 45 foot lane. F2 throws. B/R is running waving his left arm over into fair territory, not a part of his natural running motion. Ball hits him.

This is clearly interference. Why else is he doing this other to interfere? If I see no explanation as the umpire (loss of balance, some weird way of protecting himself), I have to deem it intentional.

I think in the original situation, we will differ because we call various levels. Inexperienced players, that may not be interference because he may not know any better and his acts aren't done with intent in his own pea brain. D1, why else is he doing that, does he not know how to play baseball?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

Yeah. What he said.

[MD Longhorn]

Hey, I've added an ignore to my list - and now you're going to just see the kinder, gentler, friendlier Mike.

Can't we all just get along?

[Tim C]

"I think the runner going back to third (in this case) with his “hands high above his head” is trying to get hit with the throw. If that runner gets hit in the hands or arms, I will call interference."

That may work in your local little league but experienced umpires will simply do an "Ignatowski".

"Ignatowski": adj . . . to simply nod knowingly and smile.

T

[Tim C]

Never knew there were this many OOOs on this list.

T

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

Your reading is more charitable than mine. I suppose I've seen too many people post that something is "not a baseball play" and a violation of "common sense," so they're going to get an out or start awarding bases.

The good news is that nobody has posted that the runner getting hit in the back counts as INT.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The good news is that nobody has posted that the runner getting hit in the back counts as INT.

What if he is playing hopscotch back the base and gets hit in the back?