Help with an interference call.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

It is very difficult to determine how an umpire should rule when it comes to OPs that are vague. If a retired/scored runner interfers with a play, the runner being played is called out. This rule applies when said runner does something other than running out his initial responsibilities.

The OP wasn't vague. The runner, after scoring, is hit in the back by a poorly thrown ball away from the play.

That is not interference. Simple.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The OP wasn't vague. The runner, after scoring, is hit in the back by a poorly thrown ball away from the play.

That is not interference. Simple.

Maybe we were looking at different posts?

The OPers "second post" clarified further what occured on the play from the OP. "The confusion was due to the player who scored altering his path, making a left turn and right into the path of the throw."

Doesn't sound like a bad throw that had no shot of being fielded.

But it does sound both "blatant and avoidable" to me.

And no doubt would be judged the same by any knowledgable/trained umpire, were it to occur in front of them. Regardless of the responces here, I'm confident that this would be called int. correctly everytime.

I have called this one time in 30+ yrs., heard of it being called on one other occasion by an umpire with more years than I. So, twice that I am aware of in over 60 years of umpiring, it's a TWP at best.

So, if you've a grasp of the rules, a sense of fair play, are willing to do the right thing, then you too would enforce this accurately should the need arise.

And don't worry, should you screw it up or choose not to enforce due to a lack of TF, I'm pretty sure the coaches won't know anyway.

So just make it sound good and you'll be fine, unless of course it gets to a knowledable protest committee, then you might just be "coming back" and working for free.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Maybe we were looking at different posts?

The OPers "second post" clarified further what occured on the play from the OP. "The confusion was due to the player who scored altering his path, making a left turn and right into the path of the throw."

Doesn't sound like a bad throw that had no shot of being fielded.

But it does sound both "blatant and avoidable" to me.

How so? He was doing what he was supposed to, and had no knowledge of where the ball was travelling.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

And no doubt would be judged the same by any knowledgable/trained umpire, were it to occur in front of them. Regardless of the responces here, I'm confident that this would be called int. correctly everytime.

Your second sentence here does not match the first. A knowledgeable, trained umpire is NOT going to call this INT absent intent.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

I have called this one time in 30+ yrs., heard of it being called on one other occasion by an umpire with more years than I. So, twice that I am aware of in over 60 years of umpiring, it's a TWP at best.

The reason that you've heard of it being called twice is that those are the times it was called incorrectly.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

So, if you've a grasp of the rules, a sense of fair play, are willing to do the right thing, then you too would enforce this accurately should the need arise.

Yep, which is not what you are positing.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

And don't worry, should you screw it up or choose not to enforce due to a lack of TF, I'm pretty sure the coaches won't know anyway.

So just make it sound good and you'll be fine, unless of course it gets to a knowledable protest committee, then you might just be "coming back" and working for free.

All that chest-pounding soapbox action, and you're still wrong.

Learn the intent of the rules before you take the podium. If you're the umpire, and I'm the coach, guess where I'm telling my guys to throw the ball?

[soundedlikeastrike]

"He was doing what he was supposed to, and had no knowledge of where the ball was travelling."

Oh man, I really screwed this one up... not.

Please quote me anything from a rule book which backs up the first 1/2 of that statement.

And clarify how to meet the requirements of 7.11 unless one knows where the ball is traveling.

As to where you'd tell your players to throw; I'm guessing, you'd tell your players something like; "your throws must be absolutely thread the needle perfect, especially on a throw to the plate, no other way to get it through the 3 offensive players gathered around there doing their jobs."

or

something really smart, like: throw at blue's 100's of dollars worth of protective gear that sheds foul balls like water off a ducks back so I can leave early..

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

"He was doing what he was supposed to, and had no knowledge of where the ball was travelling."

Oh man, I really screwed this one up... not.

Please quote me anything from a rule book which backs up the first 1/2 of that statement.

And clarify how to meet the requirements of 7.11 unless one knows where the ball is traveling.

As to where you'd tell your players to throw; I'm guessing, you'd tell your players something like; "your throws must be absolutely thread the needle perfect, especially on a throw to the plate, no other way to get it through the 3 offensive players gathered around there doing their jobs."

or

something really smart, like: throw at blue's 100's of dollars worth of protective gear that sheds foul balls like water off a ducks back so I can leave early..

You do realize that although you are 100% correct, you are arguing against a mob who are rolling logs in an effort to distract your accuracy?

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

You do realize that although you are 100% correct, you are arguing against a mob who are rolling logs in an effort to distract your accuracy?

Yes. Takes more than the "loudest" to convince me however.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Yes. Takes more than the "loudest" to convince me however.

Let me whisper then....you are incorrect in all codes,