who's responsibility is it?
 

Situation:

two outs, R1 on third, R2 on Second. B1 hits ball to shortstop. As line drive approaches SS she moves left to field ball but suddenly flinches because the runner (R2) is there. As plate umpire I call runner out because I feel SS could have easily fielded the ball. Base umpire is upset because she feels that is her call.
Any feedback?

Either umpire can call obstruction or interference, but in this situation maybe the base umpire felt you were calling in their area. Sometimes the umpire doesn't see these things and sometimes they have passed on them. It's a fine line between the two sometimes. Bottom line is get the call right, and put your pride on the shelf.

Guess I'd wonder what the level is. A high school varsity player had better be able to make the play. So, varsity or higher, I've probably got no call - based on what you described.

As to who's call that is - primary is BU. Call in your area, watch the other area(s). Give your partner the chance to make the call. If partner has a good look, I'm probably going to trust my partner's judgement. If partner does not have a good look, make the call.

Steve,

This was a Federation Varsity Game. Can you tell me where in the book or umpires manual where it says that an area of the field is a base umpires and where the areas of the field belong to the plate umpire?

As to who's call that is - primary is BU. Call in your area, watch the other area(s). Give your partner the chance to make the call. If partner has a good look, I'm probably going to trust my partner's judgement. If partner does not have a good look, make the call.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. The resposibility for a line drive in the infield belongs to the PU. The BU, stationed in the C position is behind the SS and in no position to call catch/no catch on a line drive.

I do agree, however, that either umpire can make the interference call here.

So the runner is there. Where's the INT. What did the runner do to interfere?

That was my question
What did the runner do to inerfere?
I had a collision yesterday when R2 on 2B crashed into F6 fielding a ground ball. DB, Out
Coach: Blue, that runner has the same right to that spot on the field as the fielder

Is that another one of those "hands are a part of the bat" myths?

Irish,

In my opinion and from my angle I felt the runner did not make an adaquate attempt to avoid the fielder and entered the fielders area.

Read the words of this rule againm blu. No where is the adequacy of the runner's attempt to avoid mentioned.

Just because a fielder sees a runner out of the corner of their eye or runs by them is not interference. More lack of concentration on the fielder.

No Contact? No Verbal Distraction? Just being "in the area" and you call interference????

I'd be upset if I were your partner too! But not simply because you made my call! Maybe the fielder "flinched" because she got a chill, or a fly landed on her? Come ON! Let'm Play! The game is not about SEEING the umpire make calls!

The best called game is one that you are never noticed!

As with most interference scenarios, this is a HTBT to determine whether or not we have interference.

I read the original post as F6 moving to field the ball and flinching or stopping due to what she believes is an imminent collision with the runner! That's interference in my book. It is the runners responsibility to avoid the fielder. Yes, its a judgement call and none of us (except the OP) were there. We can only go off of the picture we form in our mind from the description provided.

As far as whose call it is - Steve M gave a good guideline.

No where in the rule book does it say contact or verbal distraction must happen to constitute interference. I percieved that the fielder thought a collision was going to take place based on the location of the runner.

If you're going to get ticky-tack on his words, what about yours. No where in the rulebook does it say that perception about what a fielder THOUGHT might happen constitutes interference. No where does it say that fear of a possible collision by a fielder constitutes interference. How about instead of wordsmithing, look at what the rule actually DOES say.

The runner was doing what the runner was supposed to do, and did not prevent a play. The fielder's reaction to what may or may not have happened is what prevented a play. I grant you that actual contact is not always required for an interference call. But I do think you are stretching the words of the rule WAY WAY WAY too far here.

Only Steve M addressed the question.
I do agree with him, that the primary for a runner in that area is the BU.
And as he said, "If partner does not have a good look, make the call."

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.

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 <u>feelings</u> on whether a player has a <u>disadvantage</u>, 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".

I disagree. If you SEE interference, you call it no matter where on the field it occurs or your position as an umpire.

Please note that I said SEE interference.

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.

But Steve's point was to let the primary have first shot; as it is more convincing and less confusing than having both call it. "primary is BU. Call in your area, watch the other area(s). Give your partner the chance to make the call. If partner has a good look, I'm probably going to trust my partner's judgement."
In a game a couple of years ago, a similar play happened, obviously INT, but the relatively new BU signalled OBS as the PU called "dead ball", then INT.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Agree. If you or your partner have a problem with that, talk about it between innings, keep it short and don't get in an arguement. You can't change the call. Live with it. You are a team out there. I usually say, thanks, I might have missed something or that's what I had. Just don't end up at the same base with different calls.:eek:

Mike,
If I am absolutely sure that I've just seen interference, yup, call it. But, before I call interference, I'm looking to see what my partner is doing. If my partner has a good look at this same play - right position and can see what needs to be seen and is looking at it - my split second or so delay is going to let my partner call it. And if my partner is looking right at it, chances are real good my partner is going to give a "safe" signal which sez "Yes, I saw that and it's nothing." My split second delay is going to avoid us having conflicting calls AND is allowing my partner to keep/have/whatever primary responsibility where my partner has primary responsibility.

Just because you partner (and is not offering a signal exclusive to NCAA?) didn't think it was INT or whatever, doesn't mean that umpire has the same angle. It also means that it isn't INT, OBS, whatever. Remember, I'm talking about SEEING a violation. There are no "primary" duties when it comes to INT, OBS or other obvious violations.

A decent example is last year in OKC when there was runners at the corner an a pitcher from a GA team was rolling. I'm U3 and R2 was returning to 1B after a pitch. The pitcher got the ball, stepped on the PP and started the pitch. Even though U2 is responsible for R2, I'm looking right through the P and immediately killed the ball. U2 (WY umpire) was right behind me in the call.

All the calls we are discussing are the type which need to be immediate and decisive. I'm not saying that Steve is wrong in what he does, I just don't agree with it. I also don't agree with the NCAA's mechanic of the "safe" signal as it may conflict with what his/her partner observed and now, regardless of the circumstance, cannot be called without an unavoidable issue that will not reflect well on the crew.

If there is confusion , impedence or the fielder interferes then we have interference .
This is always judgement and most cases HTBT so I wont say yes or know .
I will say that either Ump can call it and often the plate Ump in this situation can see it better .
As to your Bu , I think they have a problem if they consider this is my area and this is yours .
Both of you are a team , you rely on each other .

"flinches?"


OOO :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. The resposibility for a line drive in the infield belongs to the PU. The BU, stationed in the C position is behind the SS and in no position to call catch/no catch on a line drive.

I do agree, however, that either umpire can make the interference call here.[/QUOTE]