When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, that still doesn't do it for me.

As we saw in a clip from eteamz (below) too many different possible interpretations. In the clip, the batter, in no way, shape or form committed an act of interference. Yes, she took a step when regaining her balance, but with the rewording of the rule, you have umpires making calls like we see on the clip.

In the past, the catcher knew exactly where the batter could or could not go. Because of rulings like this, the catcher will now throw through the box and the batter beware. BTW, you don't think coaches are going to take advantage of this, do you?

I'll repeat what I have said before, and what I was told by multiple members of the NUS. The calls should not be different, it's just a better worded rule. Any umpire who couldn't read a player's intent in such a play before, isn't going to be any better an umpire now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsfj68JjJuY&mode=related&search=

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

With this being posted on the ASA web site, I have a different call between 2006 and 2007.

I don't like the new call, but it is not consistent with "The calls should not be different, just better worded."

[Andy]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

With this being posted on the ASA web site, I have a different call between 2006 and 2007.

I don't like the new call, but it is not consistent with "The calls should not be different, just better worded."

Tony - Are you saying that you would not have called interference on the batter under the 2006 rule? As I picture this play, the batter intentionally moved in the batter's box and interferred with the catcher's throw. She may not have meant to interfere with the catcher, but her intentional movement did cause interference. I've got an interference call under 2006 and 2007 rules.

[tcannizzo]

It should be obvious that I am reading this play from the perspective that the batter did not intentionally bump into the catcher.

I will re-phrase my question. What is the difference between judging "intentionally" and judging "actively"?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

Tony - Are you saying that you would not have called interference on the batter under the 2006 rule? As I picture this play, the batter intentionally moved in the batter's box and interferred with the catcher's throw. She may not have meant to interfere with the catcher, but her intentional movement did cause interference. I've got an interference call under 2006 and 2007 rules.

I agree. Recovering one's balance is one thing. Preparing for the next pitch is another.

I think this is where the "I have to read their mind to make this call" mentality came into play in years past. There is a difference in the batter's action/reaction being the result of a pitch/swing and taking a step to reposition one's self in the box.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is a difference in the batter's action/reaction being the result of a pitch/swing and taking a step to reposition one's self in the box.

Got it. Thanks.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Another thing in the "when I'm wrong, I'm wrong" category - different game, this one 12U Rec - coach decides he wants to try a new girl at catcher and she tells me she never caught before.

So here comes a pitch - the girl doesnt move, shes frozen. The ball wacks me. So I take another one and I tell her "girl you need to move that mitt and catch the ball." I took a few more hits, I tell her to catch the ball.. she would catch the ones that came straight to her.. but essentially, she was a statue for anything inside or high. I took a few off my mask, shoulder, leg. Finally I took one to my hip/groin region and I'm ticked off. I tell the coach that "If I take another shot and she doesnt even attempt to catch it shes gone. I'm not a backstop". Well now she's crying and upset, but trying to catch it.

I'm gun shy and pretty much watching the ball for where I need to move and not strike/ball and just calling everything not swung at a ball. This has the effect of a long inning. I start realizing I goofed up, now she is moving though, but still can't catch. I took a another hard foul off my mask other shots. I tell the coach that I shouldnt have said that and if he wants to use her as a catcher I will just call the game for his side from behind the pitcher. So he changes her out.

Can't coaches try out a new catcher during .. oh I dont know, say - practice!

But I still goofed up saying that..

I do not care if she is only 12 years old. After the second time I got hit becuase she would not attempt to catch any pitch unless it was thrown directly where she was holder her cather's mitt, would be the last time I caught hit by a pitch with were in the cather's box. I would have called timeout and had a quiet private conversation with the catcher's coach and my partner. I would have told the coach that if the catcher did not start doing her job that I would eject him from the game. Sending a player, who has never played the position including in practice, to play the catcher's position just proves what an idiot the coach is.

No good coach would put his player in this position. As you said, we are not backstops.

MTD, Sr.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not care if she is only 12 years old. After the second time I got hit becuase she would not attempt to catch any pitch unless it was thrown directly where she was holder her cather's mitt, would be the last time I caught hit by a pitch with were in the cather's box. I would have called timeout and had a quiet private conversation with the catcher's coach and my partner. I would have told the coach that if the catcher did not start doing her job that I would eject him from the game. Sending a player, who has never played the position including in practice, to play the catcher's position just proves what an idiot the coach is.

No good coach would put his player in this position. As you said, we are not backstops.

MTD, Sr.

So how many would you eject if the team simply had no one available who had ever caught before (perhaps their only catcher had gotten hurt, sick, was at a soccer game, etc ... or perhaps even ejected earlier in the game). There's a difference between a player who is able to field the position not doing their job and letting us get hit, and a player who is simply unable to do the job.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not care if she is only 12 years old. After the second time I got hit becuase she would not attempt to catch any pitch unless it was thrown directly where she was holder her cather's mitt, would be the last time I caught hit by a pitch with were in the cather's box. I would have called timeout and had a quiet private conversation with the catcher's coach and my partner. I would have told the coach that if the catcher did not start doing her job that I would eject him from the game. Sending a player, who has never played the position including in practice, to play the catcher's position just proves what an idiot the coach is.

No good coach would put his player in this position. As you said, we are not backstops.

MTD, Sr.

And you would justify this action how, exactly, by rule?

[BuggBob]

While we may not be paid to be backstops we are paid to be there. Like all of you I have had the occasional catcher who was not a catcher but a retriever. I was getting hit all the time. Dang I was real glad I spent the money and bought some protective gear. I can (and I did) whine about it later, game on.

BTW one of the more popular Sunday School lessons I have taught is the full armor of God, where I dress in my full uniform and have the kids throw balls at me. Young boys will throw with everything they have, whereas girls will try not to hurt you.

Bob

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

With this being posted on the ASA web site, I have a different call between 2006 and 2007.

I don't like the new call, but it is not consistent with "The calls should not be different, just better worded."

I'm not sure why it is not being sold as a rule change, when it most definately is a change. Intentional meant "on purpose" in application. No longer is that a fact, if the O player acts causing INT, its interference.

It's a change. No doubt about it.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not care if she is only 12 years old. After the second time I got hit becuase she would not attempt to catch any pitch unless it was thrown directly where she was holder her cather's mitt, would be the last time I caught hit by a pitch with were in the cather's box. I would have called timeout and had a quiet private conversation with the catcher's coach and my partner. I would have told the coach that if the catcher did not start doing her job that I would eject him from the game. Sending a player, who has never played the position including in practice, to play the catcher's position just proves what an idiot the coach is.

No good coach would put his player in this position. As you said, we are not backstops.

MTD, Sr.

Its Rec League and thats a little harsh for how I personally TRY to approach this league. I've been a coach, umpire, UIC and involved a long time. I dont really have a lot of the walls up that I have at a tourney. I'll talk with coaches, explain rules, and do various things on a level I would never do at a tournament with a travel team.

That said, I did get ticked off at the girl

I get hit plenty even with the "real" catchers on the team.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I'm not sure why it is not being sold as a rule change, when it most definately is a change. Intentional meant "on purpose" in application. No longer is that a fact, if the O player acts causing INT, its interference.

It's a change. No doubt about it.

There is no doubt the rules themselves have changed.

Maybe it hangs on what I mentioned before. Many umpires, including some on here, noted that they couldn't read a player's mind to determine "intent". I've never looked at it in that manner.

I've always looked at it as a player doing something not part of the movements expected in executing their duties as a player or a reaction to something caused by making a play or action in the manner of playing the game.

For example, R1 advancing toward 2B on a ground ball to F4. R1 has every right to attempt to attain 2B on the play. Once F6 caught the ball and tagged the base, the runner (knowing this SS threw in a underhanded (submarine, if you prefer) went down in a feet-first sliding motion and guarded his face with his hands (the hands were in front of the player's head). The throw hit the retired runner's hand and deflected the ball enough F3 dropped the throw.

The defense wanted interference and my ruling was a no call, live ball. The defense argued that the throw hit the runner's hand and I said, "it sure did". I told them the runner did nothing to interfere with the play. They didn't buy it, but I really didn't care.

Today, I wouldn't call that play any differently. The runner did everything humanly possible to avoid getting in the middle of the play. And even if the runner stays upright and doesn't stray from the base path, that is still not interference.

I guarantee you that if you start calling this INT, you just as well start setting aside Tuesday afternoons for time you will spend in court testifying at all the lawsuits. Okay, just a bit of exaggeration, but you get the point.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not care if she is only 12 years old. After the second time I got hit becuase she would not attempt to catch any pitch unless it was thrown directly where she was holder her cather's mitt, would be the last time I caught hit by a pitch with were in the cather's box. I would have called timeout and had a quiet private conversation with the catcher's coach and my partner. I would have told the coach that if the catcher did not start doing her job that I would eject him from the game. Sending a player, who has never played the position including in practice, to play the catcher's position just proves what an idiot the coach is.

No good coach would put his player in this position. As you said, we are not backstops.

MTD, Sr.

And that mindset, my friends, is why I was able to walk away from a pretty good avocation/career in little ball many years ago.

I don't like them using ME for practice, but I ain't jackin someone for inability. Yeah, I might say something to the coach. I have been known to say something like, "Hey, ya gotta move a little bit to catch those." Today, I am still sporting a bruise from a March 31 12U game where I uttered said phrase. It still hurts like hell, and when you take a regular dose of Plavix, aspirin and no telling what all this other crap does, you get pretty big bruises. This one is now bigger around that a 12-inch softball.

But I don't give a damn if I lose my leg over it (well, yeah, I do, but you know what I mean). I'm not ejecting them for being a bad catcher or a new-to-the-position catcher. I also wish they would let them "practice" at practice...or what about all those pitching machines out there. Put a few quarters in and let them catch before they start dealing with live bodies around them.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

For example, R1 advancing toward 2B on a ground ball to F4. R1 has every right to attempt to attain 2B on the play. Once F6 caught the ball and tagged the base, the runner (knowing this SS threw in a underhanded (submarine, if you prefer) went down in a feet-first sliding motion and guarded his face with his hands (the hands were in front of the player's head). The throw hit the retired runner's hand and deflected the ball enough F3 dropped the throw.

This is the play talked about at every clinic I attended and discussed the most with other umpires I've talked with.

It is not the ideal play for discussion because to me, its clearly not INT now or last year. THe water can get much muddier.

A sample of this is like when a player essentially makes an error or does not do the exact perfect thing to avoid INT, even if they were trying to avoid INT.

Now in the past, it may have been judged not to be INT- as there was not intent.

Now, as with my play, it is INT.

Its better that way because when there is INT, the offense is disadvantaged, even if not intentional.

Working out the nuances and training umpires on INT may be another matter.

I feel I understand what they want, but with that, I've realized the national staff out and out telling me there was no change in enforcement is incorrect. There is. An act (with a definition such as what you provided, which was excellent) is INT. I dont believe its always been that way though. Intentional is a very specific word.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Now in the past, it may have been judged not to be INT- as there was not intent.

Now, as with my play, it is INT.

Its better that way because when there is INT, the offense is disadvantaged, even if not intentional.

Yeah, the offense is disadvantaged because according to this post, the player must cede any opportunity to advance and has a no-win situation short of going "poof" and disappearing before our eyes.

It was specifically stated in Colorado Springs and Oklahoma City that the change was to have the umpire judge when an offensive player interferes with the defense. Last time I checked, "interfere" was a verb. That means it represents action. Being where one is supposed to be and doing was is reasonably natural and part of the game is not an act of INT.

Just like in OBS, the offended team is merely afforded a reasonable resolution, not an automatic penalty. If you have umpires ruling INT every time the defense fails to execute the play around offensive players which have a legitimate reason for being where they are and doing what they are doing, it changes the characteristics of the game, and that was not the intent of the rule changes.