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

[wadeintothem]

ASA: I've got about 15 games under my belt this year and I'm sold on the newly worded interference.

I was more at ease calling it when I saw it since implemented and not having to concern myself with intent. Today sealed the deal for me.

Situation R1@2b, pitch in the dirt steal is on. The batter was back in the box and stepped forward (still in the box) to get out of the catchers way (obviously presuming the catcher was going to be making the throw behind her), there is no way it was intentional. The catcher had caught the ball and was stepping forward to make the throw to 3. The catcher couldnt/didnt make the throw because the batter had stepped forward as well.

Last year I would have been thinking: That was obviously not intentional, she is in the box. To bad for the D.

This year, I rang her up.

It sealed the deal for me.

So, I'm sold. ASA did some out of the box thinking to remove intent then teach how they wanted it called and I think it's better.

As a big detractor when this rule went through, I'll say when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I feel better about this rule not having to decipher intent and only having to judge when O's actions warrant an interference call.

[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=

[wadeintothem]

I missed that thread and video on ezteamz.

Did that umpire Call INT?????

You know mike, I'm trying to make the best of this rule change, and it IS a rule change, I dont care what they say - but even with this change, its not INT.

The rule used to mean "on purpose" and now it means "causes" - so thats a change and its taught as a change but soft shoed to "not a change"... but it IS.

But even with this change, I dont see how anyone can reasonably call INT on that video.

We'll see how the season goes - TB hasnt really started up. I've worked one "A" tourney (A used VERY loosely) and some rec...

[tribefan1952]

Hmmm... I'm not convinced about this one. What's to keep the catcher from deliberately throwing the ball at the RH batter who's standing in the box when there's a steal at 3rd base? Especially if you're sure to get the interference call... After all, it's a heck of a lot easier to hit a batter standing 4 feet away than to make a good throw and a good tag on the runner. This seems to give an unfair advantage to the defense.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tribefan1952

Hmmm... I'm not convinced about this one. What's to keep the catcher from deliberately throwing the ball at the RH batter who's standing in the box when there's a steal at 3rd base? Especially if you're sure to get the interference call... After all, it's a heck of a lot easier to hit a batter standing 4 feet away than to make a good throw and a good tag on the runner. This seems to give an unfair advantage to the defense.

Actually, that is an outstanding issue with the ASA.. people misinterpreting it.

The ASA will need to iron that out so that Umpires/coaches that think like what you stated and that idiotic call in the video dont happen.

I've argued in the past the ASA must cater to the lowest common denominator and that is why we have certain things like insisting on the slot and various other things. This change may represent a step outside that "lowest common denominator" thinking and it could be a problem in that respect.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I've argued in the past the ASA must cater to the lowest common denominator and that is why we have certain things like insisting on the slot and various other things. This change may represent a step outside that "lowest common denominator" thinking and it could be a problem in that respect.

That has always been an issue. Yes, there may be better mechanics available, for those at the higher levels, but that doesn't mean all 38K registered umpires can/will accept and execute them properly.

Same with the rules. If we started tweaking every rule for every division, classification and level of play and umpiring, the rule book would make War and Peace look like a dime store novel.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by tribefan1952

Hmmm... I'm not convinced about this one. What's to keep the catcher from deliberately throwing the ball at the RH batter who's standing in the box when there's a steal at 3rd base? Especially if you're sure to get the interference call... After all, it's a heck of a lot easier to hit a batter standing 4 feet away than to make a good throw and a good tag on the runner. This seems to give an unfair advantage to the defense.

And, how or why would she be sure to get the interference call under any set of rules? Certainly not under the new ASA rule, if you understood it.

The RH batter standing in the box when there's a steal of 3rd has to ACTIVELY hinder to be subject to an interference call. So, 1) she shouldn't get the call you think, and 2) she may get a call for USC and be ejected if the PU pays attention, and realizes she was deliberately throwing the ball at the batter. And, probably the coach goes, too, when he comes out attempting to protect the catcher that he foolishly instructed to do the wrong thing.

There is no advantage gained by either offense or defense in the new wording. The advantage is to the UMPIRE, who no longer needs to try to justify to himself or a coach how he knew the intent of a player. But, you need to read and understand what ACTIVELY hindering means, and what actions that a player does aren't ever going to be interference.

[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..

[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.

[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.

[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.