obstruction??

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Because the runner just happened to be in the one spot on the field where the klutzy catcher could run into him.

That sounds like an excuse I got years ago from an umpire on a WP/PB. R3 and the pitcher gets one to the backstop. My batter stepped out of the box so the pitcher/catcher could make a play at the plate. Ball is rolling around the backstop, and R3 scores. Pitcher is late covering, and wouldn't have been close to making a play anyway. The catcher in desperation just pitches the ball toward the home plate area, and hits my batter square in the back. Umpire calls batter interference.

I walked down to ask what the deal was. He replied, "The ball hit him." I said, "I know that, but what did he do to interfere?" We repeated the same question and answer a few times.

When I finally got tired of his little cat and mouse charade, I finally told him I needed more detail than that. That's when he got pithy, and forfeited the game to the other team, even without an ejection in all of this. BTW-I wasn't impolite, or making a scene.

There's more to the story afterward, but I don't want to write a novel. However, the way I read the OP, it appears to me that the catcher caused the collision, not the runner.

The moral to my story is: The catcher in my scenario just threw the ball, and not even in the direction to where it needed to go anyway. The batter did nothing to interfere. He just happened to be in a spot where the catcher could randomly throw the ball anywhere, and still the call was incorrect. The same goes for the OP. The runner was doing what he supposed to do at that moment and time.

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

The problem is that the rules don't back up this interpretation. The scored runner (offensive teammate) MUST be out of the way. You could decide not to call interference on him if the catcher appeared to hit him on purpose ... but that didn't sound to be the case. Intent is not required on such a play - the scored runner is required to move himself completely out of the way.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The problem is that the rules don't back up this interpretation. The scored runner (offensive teammate) MUST be out of the way. You could decide not to call interference on him if the catcher appeared to hit him on purpose ... but that didn't sound to be the case. Intent is not required on such a play - the scored runner is required to move himself completely out of the way.

I've never seen an interpretation for this certain play.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That sounds like an excuse I got years ago from an umpire on a WP/PB. R3 and the pitcher gets one to the backstop. My batter stepped out of the box so the pitcher/catcher could make a play at the plate. Ball is rolling around the backstop, and R3 scores. Pitcher is late covering, and wouldn't have been close to making a play anyway. The catcher in desperation just pitches the ball toward the home plate area, and hits my batter square in the back. Umpire calls batter interference.

I walked down to ask what the deal was. He replied, "The ball hit him." I said, "I know that, but what did he do to interfere?" We repeated the same question and answer a few times.

When I finally got tired of his little cat and mouse charade, I finally told him I needed more detail than that. That's when he got pithy, and forfeited the game to the other team, even without an ejection in all of this. BTW-I wasn't impolite, or making a scene.

There's more to the story afterward, but I don't want to write a novel. However, the way I read the OP, it appears to me that the catcher caused the collision, not the runner.

The moral to my story is: The catcher in my scenario just threw the ball, and not even in the direction to where it needed to go anyway. The batter did nothing to interfere. He just happened to be in a spot where the catcher could randomly throw the ball anywhere, and still the call was incorrect. The same goes for the OP. The runner was doing what he supposed to do at that moment and time.

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

I would be interested to hear the point of view of the umpire in this situation. BTW, I didn't realize you are a coach.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I would be interested to hear the point of view of the umpire in this situation. BTW, I didn't realize you are a coach.

A little over twenty years removed. I still work with a couple of select teams on a very interim basis before the season starts.

[legend]

In this play the catcher appeared to have NO idea the runner (returning to the dugout) was in the area. He (the catcher) was focused on playing the errant throw, turned to run towards the plate and thats where contact occured. Imo, it was unintentional contact but as I have understood the rule as a 10+ year coach and 2+ year umpire, I thought the enforcement of calling the baserunner out was the correct ruling. I may have used the incorrect termoligy (obs. vs. Int.) but it sounds as if by the letter of the rule I got it right.
It was an unusual play whice is why I posted it on here. I knew I would get some help, either positive or negative, but help none the less.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by legend

I may have used the incorrect termoligy (obs. vs. Int.) but it sounds as if by the letter of the rule I got it right.
It was an unusual play whice is why I posted it on here. I knew I would get some help, either positive or negative, but help none the less.

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.

[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.