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

[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.

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

This was so good, that I thought it should be posted again so everyone can take another look.

I personally heard some of the National Staff and a few notable Division I umpires say the same.
This basic play was a quiz question in the ISF school and I ruled as Mike described. I got credit for a correct answer.