I'm at position C. Runner on 3rd, batter walks & rounds 1st to get in a rundown (pitcher's throwing arm is up). Pitcher is doing a good job of paying attention to both runners, but every time she glances at 3B, BR starts chattering, just loud enough for pitcher (and me) to hear "c'mon, c'mon, you got me...".
It's a throwing situation (not a batted ball), so I didn't kill the play. Should I have called interfence?
(This is irrelevant, but the runner scored from 3rd)

I wouldn't say that qualifies as interference. However, I admit that my instinct, as opposed to that of most other umps, is that verbal (actually <i>oral</i>) interference has to be obvious and extreme. On the other hand, I suspect some umps would consider your situation USC, especially with youth.

When I played baseball, there was no such thing as interference involving sound. Every foul fly down the line evoked "Watch out for the baby carriage." Every pop near the dugout evoked several calls of "I got it." Not saying that's right, just that that's the way it was.

I don't think I'd call VI in that situation. I also would let the play continue, unless both runners stop moving. If that happens, it's "time!" the fun's over. Next pitch, please.

Rick

Nope.

I agree with your assessment that this play would not be interference, but I'm curious why you believe it should be called oral as opposed to verbal. Wouldn't verbal be a subset of oral, in that defining it as verbal limits it to just the spoken word where oral could relate to any interference involving the mouth, e.g. biting?

Well, biting would definitely be interference! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-045.gif

I guess you could consider <i>verbal</i> to be a subset of oral in the way you described. The mouth has many uses, one of them to utter words (and I've never heard of verbal sex). But it's more often the other way around. <i>Verbal,</i> in the sense of "by means of words," is usually thought of as including oral communication. So when we instruct someone, "Be sure to communicate this verbally to Frank when you see him," the person we're talking to might think that a written document would be OK, when spoken words were what we had in mind.

Someone might argue that all oral communication might fall under the umbrella of verbal communication, but I guess that a scream or a grunt, which is certainly oral, would not technically qualify as verbal.

(In the work I do, this distinction actually matters.)

Incidentally, biting would be interference, but I've never seen it in baseball or softball. I did see it once in basketball, though. The ref called a foul and ejected the player. There is a well-known case in boxing, too.

See usage note from <i>American Heritage Dictionary:</i>

"<i>Verbal</i> has been used since the 16th century to refer to spoken, as opposed to written, communication, and the usage cannot be considered incorrect. But because verbal may also mean “by linguistic means,” it may be ambiguous in some contexts. Thus the phrase <i>modern technologies for verbal communication</i> may refer only to devices such as radio, the telephone, and the loudspeaker, or it may refer to devices such as the telegraph, the teletype, and the fax machine. In such contexts it may be clearer to use the word <i>oral</i> to convey the narrower sense of communication by spoken means."

Since interference by written word is highly unlikely in softball, I would say that "verbal interference" is a fully acceptable term.

Huh????

I have a question from this post. Does anyone think that it is interference if there is a popup between any two players and the dugout or runner yells "I got it"?? I have a real problem with this especially at the younger ages. I have often wondered about what the more seasoned veterans thought about this one.

I think it depends on the level of play. This is a tough one because you really don't know if it confused the player until they do or don't catch the ball.

From the dug out, I would say no call. From a runner in the vicinity, yeah, if the fielder reacts and backs off.

Thanks Mike.

I've got interference everytime on this one. I can think of no reason the offensive team would yell "I've got it" unless it is to attempt to confuse the defensive team.

I know we are not MLB, but in MLB, if a player is nearing the opposing dugout, the dugout gets quiet because it will be called.

<b>I know we are not MLB, but in MLB, if a player is nearing the opposing dugout, the dugout gets quiet because it will be called.</b>

That's hard to believe. I have never seen such interference called above high school level, and I have never heard of its being called in MLB. Can anyone cite an example?

What I have seen at the minor league fields that I attend regularly in Greenville is that when a play is being made near the offensive team's dugout, they all get noticeably and almost absolutely quiet. No, "look out", no "I've got it" and no "you're about to fall down the stairs."

I only attend a half dozen MLB (Atlanta) games in person each year, but what I've seen of MLB games on TV, it is the same.

It would be proper to say that the last five words of my previous post was an assumption, but one that I have always been told is true my instructors, though they were no affiliated with MLB.

I suspect that professional ballplayers consider such yelling from the dugout "bush" and refrain from it for that reason. They probably figure it's useless anyway. When I played youth ball (1960s), those antics were not illegal, and players engaged in it often. As I moved up in levels, it diminished, with little in college and even less in semipro (though there was still a lot of "razzing").

I can find no case of "verbal" interference in the PBUC or J/R. However, J/R does give an example in which interference is called on a runner who waves his arms to distract F4 or runs directly at F4, averting contact by inches. But J/R goes on to say, "However, it is not interference if the intent to interfere is solely verbal."

In similar vein, note another OBR rule contrary to youth ball: "It is not obstruction if a fielder intentionally misleads or decoys a runner."

As we can all see, softball and youth baseball are very different.

Stop! Go back and read that. Are you sure you didn't misquote the OBR? That is awfully vague to the point it flies in the face of the definition of obstruction.

I can understand their need to exempt an act like a player punching a glove or feigning an overthrow, but not a fake to the point a reaction can cause injury to a player.

The quote from J/R is correct. It goes on to give two examples:

1. R1, stealing on a full count. Ball 4 is called and R1 slides into 2B, whereupon F4 tells him the ball was batted foul, and he begins to walk back to 1B.

2. R1, hit and run. BR hits a pop fly but F6 fakes as if it is a ground ball, causing R1 to slide into 2B.

Apparently these are both legal plays.

As for preventing injuries, I can find no mention of fake tag (the obvious case) in either the PBUC or J/R (or the official rules). The BRD, under "fake tag," gives a lot of guidance, but it all pertains to "Fed only." For both NCAA and OBR, it says, "No provisions." Interesting that for OBR it says, "See [paragraph symbol] 7," which means "be certain you check with the supervisor of your league before enforcing the straight OBR rule outlined in that clause." In other words, a fake tag may be legal in MLB, but the league you're working probably outlaws it.

As regards interference and obstruction, softball obviously calls them in many cases where OBR would not.

J/R, incidentally, offers zillions of case plays (even more than the PBUC) and explains how they should be called. It goes over all kinds of fine points and possibilities in detail unlike anything else I've ever seen. Not that it can be used as a guide in softball, but reading the case plays makes one wonder, "How would I call that play if it occurred in my ASA (NSA, Fed, USSSA) game?"

For what it's worth, when I played, fake tags were considered unsportsmanlike only if they were unnecessary (runner stealing 2B, batters fouls the ball, F6 fakes a tag anyway). However, if the fielder had a legitimate reason for wanting to slow the runner down (runner stealing 2B, ball gets away from catcher), that was OK. Even then, that was considered "bush," since runners knew better than to react to what a fielder was doing.

I don't know how long ago it has been since you played, but I think it is an interesting sociological point that one often hears that people <b><i>today</i></b> are not taking responsibilities for their own actions, always trying to find others to blame, e.g. the "burned by hot coffee from McDonald's" law suit. And this example you give would seem to state a similar change of trends on the field, too.

Does softball imitate life or does life imitate softball?

Fake tags are never necessary.

What they do in any other game is basically irrelevant. A fielder away from the basepath feigning a play on a ball is nothing. A fielder feigning the receipt or throw of a ball on or relatively near a base which causes a runner to react is going to draw an obstruction call every time.

I think you have made a valid observation, Dan. Somehow there has arisen a general societal assumption that in the normal state of affairs, everything is fine, and that when someone suffers something unfortunate, somebody must be at fault for having caused the suffering, and things have to be made right. The somebody at fault is never the sufferer himself but usually a deep-pockets company like McDonalds, which today has to spend millions defending itself against charges that it is at fault because people have become fat.

So if you believe the second baseman when he says the ball was foul, and you get tagged out as you walk back to first and look like a fool, you've suffered, and something unfair must have happened. Therefore, you're protected, and the other guy, the fielder, is penalized.

I played my last baseball game in 1972. There were no rules against fake tags (so why weren't they an issue?), and "verbal" interference or obstruction was limited to something blatantly obvious like calling "time" during a play, like a basketball player blowing a whistle from the bench. Decoying in whatever way you could was part of the game, though it seldom worked. Don't think I'm for tossing such rules in school or softball, however. The days are long gone when every kid in the neighborhood played baseball all day in the summer and developed instincts for the game. The strict rules governing behavior are needed, though I think Fed goes a bit too far (e.g., tobacco-like substances).

In a parallel vein, when I played school ball, taunting the opposition was permitted, within boundaries, unlike today's total prohibition. That was probably because taunting had been a part of baseball for so long, so everybody was accustomed to it. There was plenty of razzing in MLB, too, much more than today.

In college there was a lot of heckling from the fans, softer noise from the players. In American Legion both sides heard a torrent of abuse throughout the game, mostly from fans. I'm not saying I approve of that—I think the Fed prohibition of taunting is good—but the attitude then was "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Everybody had been to MLB games and heard the leather-lungs in the stands, and we saw how the players ignored them. (Ty Cobb, however, once ran into the stands to attack a heckler—a guy in wheelchair.)

In terms of other changes in society, do you remember when many schools had riflery teams? I remember when a kid did his science project on guns. Everybody thought that was pretty cool—in 1959.

<b>A fielder feigning the receipt or throw of a ball on or relatively near a base which causes a runner to react is going to draw an obstruction call every time.</b>

In softball, yes. And in school baseball, yes. And rightfully so.

But OBR is a different story, as is NCAA, if the BRD is correct.

I'm with Mike, when you get to the level where you are paid to play then you can get rid of some of the rules that are there to minimize injuries, but when it's recreational rules need to be in place that protect people. Fake tags get people sliding and we all know that slides have been known to turn into trips to the hospital (we had to remind our park district of this when they actually used the words "must slide" in a rule).

MLB says you can take out a catcher to dislodge a ball or slide into 2nd steel up to break up a double play and that's fine but I know people that would slide steel up in a non-competitive co-rec game if we let them and does anybody really want that?

<b>I know people that would slide steel up in a non-competitive co-rec game if we let them and does anybody really want that?</b>

Certainly not. I favor the ASA/NSA/USSSA/Fed rules about fake tags, crashes, etc., and I played ASA when crashing the catcher to dislodge the ball was legal.

The top co-ed league around here plays in the fall (final playoffs were November 10). Most of the women are very good, and many of the men are heroes on the big summer teams. However, the men clearly cut their level of aggressiveness down two or three notches. (They never, for example, slide into a woman or smash the ball up the middle when a woman is pitching.) It is in the business co-ed leagues, which are full of big Little Leaguers trying to prove something, where the problems lie.

"(and I've never heard of verbal sex)."

That's what most high school boys engage in. It's also called bragging about something they haven't done, but want their peers to think they have.

Bob