Verbal Interference 2

[Joe Kupka]

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)

[greymule]

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 oral) 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.

[TexBlue]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Joe Kupka
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)

Nope.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by greymule
actually oral

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?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by SC Ump

oral could relate to any interference involving the mouth, e.g. biting?

Well, biting would definitely be interference!

[greymule]

I guess you could consider verbal 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. Verbal, 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 American Heritage Dictionary:

"Verbal 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 modern technologies for verbal communication 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 oral 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.

[TexBlue]

Huh????

[DaveASA/FED]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
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.

[DaveASA/FED]

Thanks Mike.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
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'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.

[greymule]

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.

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?

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by greymule
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.

[greymule]

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.