obstruction??

[legend]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's a feeble takeaway for a novice umpire. You need not only to be right, but to be right for the right reasons and be able to explain why you are right.

You were lucky this time. Better to be good.

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... I'm guessing by the nature of your post on this topic that from the VERY first game that you ever did you not only knew every rule but were completely 100 % perfect on every call that you made... Why be a douch? Clearly I knew the rule to be able to call it correct. Nothing "feeble" about that.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by legend

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... I'm guessing by the nature of your post on this topic that from the VERY first game that you ever did you not only knew every rule but were completely 100 % perfect on every call that you made... Why be a douch? Clearly I knew the rule to be able to call it correct. Nothing "feeble" about that.

I'm not a personal ally of mbyron, but he is about as good as one gets around here with rules knowledge. Now I didn't see the play the same way, but I've never encountered anything of the nature of what happened. I might not of seen it as interference since the scored runner was plowed over by the catcher.

You'd be surprised how many posters are passionate about the vocation of umpiring, and knowing the rules. In my book, mbyron is one of those. Also, notice the little wink annotation at the end of his last sentence.

10+ as a coach.................woo. Believe it or not, talking to umpires made me a better coach years ago. It helped me to understand, and remember the subject of the rules better.

2+ as an umpire...............bigger woo. Don't become one of those umpires that have 20 years of experience, but they really have 1 year of experience 20 times. Umpiring is like life. It's a journey, not a destination.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by legend

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... I'm guessing by the nature of your post on this topic that from the VERY first game that you ever did you not only knew every rule but were completely 100 % perfect on every call that you made... Why be a douch? Clearly I knew the rule to be able to call it correct. Nothing "feeble" about that.

No, I'm not perfect, nor was I trying to seem superior. I commented on the fact that you don't seem to be learning the rule, but instead are merely concerned with whether you got this one call right.

You don't know the rule or its application, or you would not have made your original post. You didn't know the "correct terminology," and remarked that "it sounds as if by the letter of the rule" you got it right. To me, those remarks suggest that you're still not confident of the scope and application of the rule.

I don't have to be the world's best umpire to encourage you to look beyond one situation and understand the rule and its application better. We see a lot of novice umpires who think they know everything and can't take constructive criticism. Perhaps your posts were misleading and the reality is different from the appearance: if so, you can certainly make that point without attacking me.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by legend

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... ... Why be a douch?

It's "douche." You're welcome.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by legend

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... I'm guessing by the nature of your post on this topic that from the VERY first game that you ever did you not only knew every rule but were completely 100 % perfect on every call that you made... Why be a douch? Clearly I knew the rule to be able to call it correct. Nothing "feeble" about that.

Clearly you didn't. No offense intended here, but it doesn't require perfection to know the difference between OBS and INT. Not even close. It might require some experience to learn when exactly to call interference and when not to... or when to call OBS and when not to. But given that the difference between the two is the difference between Apples and Volkswagens, I don't think it was condescending to note that your takeaway from this situation was very poor, and very likely to lead to future problems. I guarantee mb was not being condescending (or douchy) to you - he was trying to be helpful. The fact that you took it the way you did doesn't bode well for you to be frank.

BTW - if you think correctly guessing heads on a coinflip is equivalent to "knowing the rule", you're going nowhere fast.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I'm not a personal ally of mbyron, but he is about as good as one gets around here with rules knowledge. Now I didn't see the play the same way, but I've never encountered anything of the nature of what happened. I might not of seen it as interference since the scored runner was plowed over by the catcher.

You'd be surprised how many posters are passionate about the vocation of umpiring, and knowing the rules. In my book, mbyron is one of those. Also, notice the little wink annotation at the end of his last sentence.

10+ as a coach.................woo. Believe it or not, talking to umpires made me a better coach years ago. It helped me to understand, and remember the subject of the rules better.

2+ as an umpire...............bigger woo. Don't become one of those umpires that have 20 years of experience, but they really have 1 year of experience 20 times. Umpiring is like life. It's a journey, not a destination.

Despite our differences, I must say, "Well said, Steven". +1

[Matt Quistberg]

I'm new to this forum but have been a Little League umpire for years. Two Little League rules covers this situation.

First, Rule 2.00 - Interference(a): "Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules".

Second, Rule 7.09(e) - "Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for interference by a teammate".

Granted the the runner who just scored and was returning to the dougout had not been "put out." But I think the rule still applies here especailly when supported by Rule 2.00 - Interference. Note neither of these particular rules require "intentional interference". So the runner advancing to home would be out for interference by his teamate.

I also agree with mbyron. You need to be right, understand why you are right, and be able to explain the interpretation for why your right. You will cause yourself a lot of grief if you mix up interference with obstruction. Also, be sure to refer to Little League rules and not OBR for Little League games. There are some important differences.