No "Intent" in interference

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok, I heard you all talking about it, but I just read the rule changes, haven't gotten 2007 books yet, about ASA change to take intentional out of interference. I understand there is still the untouchable response of "In my judgement there was no interference" but in this situation:

R1 on 2nd R2 on 1st shot to F6 handles it but traps it, bobbles it and goes to throw to F5 who is standing on the back side of the base allowing the runner full access to the base (no OBS is my intent in saying this) and F6 lets go a screamer from her knees toward F5 which is about knee high to the outfield side of the base. Right after she lets go R1 starts a beautiful hook slide toward the outfield reaching out with her left hand to hook the corner of the base toward home as she starts the slide the ball contacts her helmet and goes flying into the fence.

Under 2006 rules I have an easy, there was no intent to interfere so there is no INT, easy conversation with coach. But this year how can I say she didn't interfere? F5 was in position to recieve the ball, F6's throw was on track, R1 was performing a normal baserunning (assume the team has been hook sliding all day) activity. IMO I have a real problem calling INT on the runner in this case. BUT I can see some ugly conversations with the coach, about how can I say she did not interfere when the ball ended up at the fence. What have you all thought to say to the defensive coach in a situation like this? Don't get me wrong I have no issue in saying "IMJ" and going with it, but I just feel like this removal has weakened our rule support on this issue. Am I missing something???

[AtlUmpSteve]

The "intent" wasn't simply removed; it was replaced with the word and concept "actively". So, I ask you, in your play, what was done by the runner to "actively" interfere?

If R1 throws her hands up, and the ball hits her hands and deflects away, maybe. This concept requires the person who interferes to do something specific which creates the interference. Just as before. We just don't have to get in her head to try to figure out why she did it; if she did it (and "it" isn't simply doing what she should do), and it interferes, it is interference.

Does that help? Or am I just talking to convince myself?

[DaveASA/FED]

As I said I have not gotten my rule book yet, just read the link on Irish's website for rule changes and it read:

"Rule 8 Section 7 J 3: When a runner interferes with a thrown ball.

Comments: Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent. It also matches the rule to the definition."

Maybe this was a early copy and the wording has changed? I don't see any actively mentioned, if it is there I agree I can live with that same idea different word, just don't see it listed there!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Attended a clinic this past weekend and when the discussion came to the rule changes and interference, the words 'intent', 'intentional', and 'intentionality' (hey, not my word) were used more the the term 'interference' was used.

This supports my concern of the changes. The moment an umpire uses any word which insinuates "intent", the coach is going to scream and holler that the umpire must be wrong because that was removed from the rule.

I think UICs may be called to the field a bit more often this season.

BTW, the clinicians were of the national staff.

[Dakota]

Mike,

Can you attempt to put into national staff clinician-speak an explanation of the call in the OP situation in two contexts...

1) How they would explain the correct call using the 2007 rules in an umpire clinic;

2) How they would suggest we explain the call to the coach.

[WestMichBlue]

I don't like the change, but at least with interference on a throw I can see a simple rule of thumb to follow.

If runner gets hit by ball, no interference, bad throw.

If runner moves into path of ball and is hit, regardless if intentional or accidental, the call is interference.

Yes, that is in line with the standard definition of interference. Interference is interference - regardless of the reason why.

At the batter's box it may be a little more difficult. We are really going to require the batter to be a statue (stiff, un-moving) when the catcher attempts to make a play at a base. In the past we have felt that the batter's box was a sanctuary, but no longer.

Thought her feet may still be in the box, if the batter moves (bat, hand, body) into the path of the catcher we will have to call interference.

This could be a tougher change to handle than the obstruction change a few years ago. And then NFHS will follow in 2008 and we will go through these discussions again.

Have fun.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

R1 on 2nd R2 on 1st shot to F6 handles it but traps it, bobbles it and goes to throw to F5 who is standing on the back side of the base allowing the runner full access to the base (no OBS is my intent in saying this) and F6 lets go a screamer from her knees toward F5 which is about knee high to the outfield side of the base. Right after she lets go R1 starts a beautiful hook slide toward the outfield reaching out with her left hand to hook the corner of the base toward home as she starts the slide the ball contacts her helmet and goes flying into the fence.

New rules: If you, as the umpire, believes the runner was executing a proper and legal slide to attain the base safely, no interference.

This slide is suspect as to the runner's intention, however, please note that the runner has every right to approach and contact a base in any manner they please unless to avoid a tag. The fact that the defender gave the runner access to the bag does not absolve them of OBS, nor restrict the baserunner's options. As long as this runner did not do anything to "interfere" with the play, I have no call.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Attended a clinic this past weekend and when the discussion came to the rule changes and interference, the words 'intent', 'intentional', and 'intentionality' (hey, not my word) were used more the the term 'interference' was used.

This supports my concern of the changes. The moment an umpire uses any word which insinuates "intent", the coach is going to scream and holler that the umpire must be wrong because that was removed from the rule.

I think UICs may be called to the field a bit more often this season.

BTW, the clinicians were of the national staff.

I also attended a national staff rules clinic this past weekend. This one caused the most stir of course and will surely cause the most trouble this year.

The way it was explained was to essentially "allow the umpires to determine INT instead getting into the players mind to determine intent".

I believe "intent" to be an escape for an Umpire.. not something holding me back. They removed our escape valve for an INT.

Its much easier to claim "I didnt believe there was Intent" than it is to claim "I dont believe there was interference".

It was a decent clinic though and one things for sure.. cant wait for it all to start up again.

[wadeintothem]

also at the clinic I brought up the INT scenario to the National guy that we discussed at length a couple of months ago and it was too quickly dismissed as "INT" (which I agree with) without any (or enough) thought given to the scenario.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I believe "intent" to be an escape for an Umpire.. not something holding me back. They removed our escape valve for an INT.

Its much easier to claim "I didnt believe there was Intent" than it is to claim "I dont believe there was interference".

It was a decent clinic though and one things for sure.. cant wait for it all to start up again.

You see it as an "escape". I see it as a guideline.

The biggest difference will be when the runner is doing exactly what they are supposed to do (i.e., advance toward 2B from 1st on a ground ball) and get hit with a thrown ball. Old rule told the umpire there must be intent and even then, you had umpires that insisted the runner not going "POOF" into thin air was intentional. Now you will have coaches DEMANDING calls because the rule no longer gives the umpire guidance and the umpire will cave in a heartbeat.

Remember, we are not talking about the 2-3% that do NC/NT, but 38K umpires around the country.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remember, we are not talking about the 2-3% that do NC/NT, but 38K umpires around the country.

We are also talking about those umpires who try their best to learn the rule changes and how they are to be applied being unable to call it correctly without a firestorm because the of all the umpires who only know intent is no longer in the rule.

I am even less hopeful about this than I was (as if that was even possible) upon hearing that the national staff could not explain this without using the word "intent".

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

We are also talking about those umpires who try their best to learn the rule changes and how they are to be applied being unable to call it correctly without a firestorm because the of all the umpires who only know intent is no longer in the rule.

I am even less hopeful about this than I was (as if that was even possible) upon hearing that the national staff could not explain this without using the word "intent".

In fairness, mine did..

For example, when asked about the obvious example regarding this call.. R1@1b advancing and F4 throwing - beaning the runner.. he essentially said

Well did the runner interfeer with the play or did the fielder hit the runner with the ball? If the fielder hit this runner with the ball, and in your judgement, the runner did not interfere with the play, then its not INT. Its simply the fielder hitting the runner with the ball.



I will make my call this year based on direction provided to me by national staff (essentially no change in enforcement) and I will tell any pissed of coach that he can file a protest, but that is my ruling. In my written statement about what went down I will state something like: the rule change now made the rule ambiguous and upon a black and white reading of the rule, I in fact agree with the coach that it was INT and further clarification is required by ASA.

This is their mess, they can clean it up.

There will be enough protests and problems, especially from Umpires, this year that I am virtually certain ASA will revisit it next year, if not sooner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

In fairness, mine did..

For example, when asked about the obvious example regarding this call.. R1@1b advancing and F4 throwing - beaning the runner.. he essentially said

Well did the runner interfeer with the play or did the fielder hit the runner with the ball? If the fielder hit this runner with the ball, and in your judgement, the runner did not interfere with the play, then its not INT. Its simply the fielder hitting the runner with the ball.



I will make my call this year based on direction provided to me by national staff (essentially no change in enforcement) and I will tell any pissed of coach that he can file a protest, but that is my ruling. In my written statement about what went down I will state something like: the rule change now made the rule ambiguous and upon a black and white reading of the rule, I in fact agree with the coach that it was INT and further clarification is required by ASA.

This is their mess, they can clean it up.

There will be enough protests and problems, especially from Umpires, this year that I am virtually certain ASA will revisit it next year, if not sooner.

Meanwhile, we lose umpires because of the "firestorms" caused by this type of change.

Again, many of us will rule the same as in the past and begin every explanation with, "In my judgment..."

But you will still have people working championship play who will take this rule to heart and/or not have the courage to stand up to a ranting coach, only to have it called correctly by the next umpire. I cannot blame the coaches when they get upset over this issue and, trust me, they will.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Meanwhile, we lose umpires because of the "firestorms" caused by this type of change.

Again, many of us will rule the same as in the past and begin every explanation with, "In my judgment..."

But you will still have people working championship play who will take this rule to heart and/or not have the courage to stand up to a ranting coach, only to have it called correctly by the next umpire. I cannot blame the coaches when they get upset over this issue and, trust me, they will.

I teach at two local rec league clinics..

Very soon I will be standing in front of 30-40 coaches and umpires trying to sell this and explain this in a reasonable and understandable manner. Some of them will be 12-14 years old umpiring for their first time.

I do not look forward to it.

I am very glad I am not in your position, which is much more daunting.

[JefferMC]

It seems to me from what I've been reading here (no, I don't have the book) is that the basis is:

What ACTION did the offensive player/coach/whatever take that was outside the norm of what they would normally be doing that caused interference? ("outside the norm" are probably my coloring).

If the team had been hook sliding into 2B all day, then I don't see that they ACTED to cause interference.

If the batter MOVES to the back of the box, getting in the way of a snap throw to Third, then they ACTED, thus INT. If she had remained in a more normal spot, then no ACTION happened, thus no INT.

It seems to me that in the past, we've seen an action and were supposed to decide whether the "deviant" action was intentional. Now, whether or not the action was intentional, if it deviated from what we expect, it's INT.