who's responsibility is it?

[blu_bawls]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

But I do think you are stretching the words of the rule WAY WAY WAY too far here.

And you're opinion of my "stretching the words of the rule" are relavent because?

Stretching, or over-interpreting, are somewhat part of the duties of an umpire.

Please don't respond if you can't give me a clean focused answer not attempting to show me up.

Cecil is correct, only Stephen answered the question I posted. At no time did I ask for a interpretation of the interference rule. I asked about responsibilities and after speaking to some very knowledgable umpires here I hsve my answer.

No umpire has duties over another umpire on the field. Each position (PU and BU) have different primary responsibilities and each must make their decisions on their personal judgment of the situation and they must act accordingly.

If either umpire feels a player has been put at a disadvantage he/she must act on that feeling whether their partner agrees or disagrees.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

If either umpire feels a player has been put at a disadvantage he/she must act on that feeling ...

I disagree. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Neither does disadvantage.

The rules proscribe certain actions of players with respect to each other in the interference and obstruction rules. Our feelings on whether a player has a disadvantage, whether or not it was caused by reaction to another player, should have no bearing on our calls.

Perhaps you misspoke, or did not exactly mean this the way I am reading it, but taking you at your written words, I disagree.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I disagree. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Neither does disadvantage.

The rules proscribe certain actions of players with respect to each other in the interference and obstruction rules. Our feelings on whether a player has a disadvantage, whether or not it was caused by reaction to another player, should have no bearing on our calls.

Perhaps you misspoke, or did not exactly mean this the way I am reading it, but taking you at your written words, I disagree.

I read "If either umpire feels a player has been put at a disadvantage he/she must act on that feeling whether their partner agrees or disagrees" as "judges an infraction has occurred".

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I read "If either umpire feels a player has been put at a disadvantage he/she must act on that feeling whether their partner agrees or disagrees" as "judges an infraction has occurred".

If that is what he meant, I agree with that. But, we just had (a week or so ago) a long discussion on another board where umpires seemed to be obsessed with keeping things "fair" and with punishing a player (calling her out) due to their feelings that things were just not fair. Not our job.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

And you're opinion of my "stretching the words of the rule" are relavent because?

Because of the opinion you have expressed that if F6 flinches away from a play because she thinks there MAY be a collission at some point in the future, you have interference. I think that is an overstretch.

Stretching, or over-interpreting, are somewhat part of the duties of an umpire.

Interpreting yes. Stretching and overinterpreting? Why would you say that?

Please don't respond if you can't give me a clean focused answer not attempting to show me up.

Please don't take simple disagreement as an attempt to show you up - I assure you that was not my intent. My intent was merely to disabuse you of the notion that possible future interference equals ACTUAL interference. I've still failed to do so, and will continue to try... but I'm still not trying to show you up.

Cecil is correct, only Stephen answered the question I posted. At no time did I ask for a interpretation of the interference rule. I asked about responsibilities and after speaking to some very knowledgable umpires here I hsve my answer.

Good point - I didn't address this because others have said exactly what I would of said. Let the primary call it, but if he doesn't, and you're sure (from 75 feet away) that you SEE an actual infraction, you definitely call it. My purpose in responding to the non-question part of your post is as above. I see a training issue here - one that is common for those that work for me as well - that I thought my input could help with.

No umpire has duties over another umpire on the field. Each position (PU and BU) have different primary responsibilities and each must make their decisions on their personal judgment of the situation and they must act accordingly.

True on most calls. But certain calls (primarily OBS and INT) "belong" to everyone, as you allude to below.

f either umpire feels a player has been put at a disadvantage he/she must act on that feeling whether their partner agrees or disagrees.

Here again is evidence that you may need to revise your definition of an infraction. Players are put at disadvantages all the time. If that happens ILLEGALLY, we must act. But while the player in your sitch might have been, in your opinion, put at a disadvantage by runner, this in and of itself is NOT an illegal infraction that requires our intervention. The statement you make above is a general opinion of many umpires, that their job is to instill fairness. I would say this is true only in a secondary manner. The RULES are designed to instill fairness - and we are there to uphold the rules. But unless all of us are calling the actual rules, and not adding to them to make situation fit our own personal views of fairness, the we are in fact NOT doing our jobs.

By all means - if you SEE an ACTUAL infraction of OBS or INT - call it, even if it is closer to your partner. But don't speculate or interpolate what future actions MIGHT happen. The sitch described sounds more like DMF than INT.