Interference with ejection ?

[Rich Ives]

I strangely agree with Aerosmith - with both my OC and DC hats on. Where is the interferemce if the runner was within reach of the bag? How is this different than a legal "take-out" slide within reach iof the bag? If you're calling interference it's because you're creating a requirement not required by the rules. USSSA isn't FED. Lose the FED hats.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I strangely agree with Aerosmith - with both my OC and DC hats on. Where is the interferemce if the runner was within reach of the bag? How is this different than a legal "take-out" slide within reach iof the bag? If you're calling interference it's because you're creating a requirement not required by the rules. USSSA isn't FED. Lose the FED hats.

No one is saying they are forced to slide. However, a retired runner remaining upright and running toward the thrower such that it forces the fielder to double-clutch his throw is interference in any code.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No one is saying they are forced to slide. However, a retired runner remaining upright and running toward the thrower such that it forces the fielder to double-clutch his throw is interference in any code.

If that's the case, then F4/F6 should always double clutch. Remember it's just judgment, and will get you home faster.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

If that's the case, then F4/F6 should always double clutch. Remember it's just judgment, and will get you home faster.

I unignored you because someone I trust here told me you'd stopped putting words in peoples mouths and then arguing with those words they didn't say. He may have been wrong.

I did not say that every time a fielder double clutches, it's interference. I said that if a runner remains upright, veers toward the fielder and CAUSES him to double clutch, it's interference. If you, the umpire, rule that his action of running toward the fielder after being put out interfered with the ability of him to throw the ball - call it.

PS - what the heck do you mean by "it's just judgement and will get you home faster" ... if that's your mentality, then you want outs ... and interference here is an out - arguing AGAINST the interference as you are gets you less outs, getting you home slower. (Not that this is my criteria... just that your comment contradicts your argument).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I unignored you because someone I trust here told me you'd stopped putting words in peoples mouths and then arguing with those words they didn't say. He may have been wrong.

He was wrong.

[thumpferee]

You guys would make a great morning show!

I would watch

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I unignored you because someone I trust here told me you'd stopped putting words in peoples mouths and then arguing with those words they didn't say. He may have been wrong.

I did not say that every time a fielder double clutches, it's interference. I said that if a runner remains upright, veers toward the fielder and CAUSES him to double clutch, it's interference. If you, the umpire, rule that his action of running toward the fielder after being put out interfered with the ability of him to throw the ball - call it.

PS - what the heck do you mean by "it's just judgement and will get you home faster" ... if that's your mentality, then you want outs ... and interference here is an out - arguing AGAINST the interference as you are gets you less outs, getting you home slower. (Not that this is my criteria... just that your comment contradicts your argument).

You didn't say VEERED in the post I quoted. The OP mentioned the runner was about 20 ft. away. Just curious where you got running toward a fielder, and the fielder double clutches it's interference in all codes from. Interference is a judgment call. I just don't see the play being interference in a 10U game. Big boys don't double clutch, they throw. Runner better be prepared to at least duck if the ball is going toward his head. Just ask Dizzy Dean.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

PS - what the heck do you mean by "it's just judgement and will get you home faster" ... if that's your mentality, then you want outs ... and interference here is an out - arguing AGAINST the interference as you are gets you less outs, getting you home slower. (Not that this is my criteria... just that your comment contradicts your argument).

No, that was his 'subtle' attempt to zing you. Sort of along the lines of saying to someone "you're just doing this for a paycheck" or "it's about the kids, not you."

I'm not sure why Tyler and Rich don't see it - well, Rich is always a coach first, so there's that - but when the OP said both that F4 came across 2B, and R1 veered inside, it's really not that hard to figure it out. R1, after being retired, hindered F4's attempt to make the play. Int.

Yes, "big boys throw, not double clutch." And in real, proper (ie, 'paid player') versions of OBR, that's just what they'd do. But that doesn't make the play any less interference, throw-at-head or not.

(BTW: Nice idea, suggesting a 9 YO throw the ball at another 9 YO's head - can't see THAT going wrong in any possible way! Not you mbcrowder, but those what did suggest it.)

[tankmjg24]

Sorry for being out of the conversation for a bit. I was recovering from a surgical procedure that I had and the narcotics I was on were a trip

Did you guys not know that 10U AAA is one of the highest divisions in the greatest organization ever (USSSA) This is just not a group of kids getting together playing baseball but a strategically planned affair. Haha

In regards to the interference I thought it was rather obvious. The kid veered a good 5 feet into the throw of the runner. When I played I was taught to slide directly to the bag. If everyone did this life would be so much better

On a side note I have become rather upset at what travel baseball is becoming. It seems that the umpires do not want to enforce anything and just want their $45 a game. The parents are crazy and think that their child is the best and never does any wrong. The coaches feel as if they know everything and that all the umpires suck. The players think that they are elite and can do as they please. Whatever happened to just playing baseball?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

On a side note I have become rather upset at what travel baseball is becoming. It seems that the umpires do not want to enforce anything and just want their $45 a game. The parents are crazy and think that their child is the best and never does any wrong. The coaches feel as if they know everything and that all the umpires suck. The players think that they are elite and can do as they please. Whatever happened to just playing baseball?

Somebody got the idea of charging a 10 year old $1,200/season to play it.

I think that explains each of your observations.

[aceholleran]

I called this more than a few times while I was umping LL.

Part of it is CS&FP, the other is safety.

Ace
Barcalounger, CT

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No one is saying they are forced to slide. However, a retired runner remaining upright and running toward the thrower such that it forces the fielder to double-clutch his throw is interference in any code.

I didn't say they were forced to slide either.

Guess why middle infielders throw sidearm on DP pivots. The "get out of the way" rule is only in FED. The thrown ball coming at their head makes them get out of the way in OBR. Such is life.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The "get out of the way" rule is only in FED.

NCAA as well. Slide directly to the base or veer off away from the fielder.