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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

wade, those two highlighted statements appear to me to be incompatible. The national staff is telling you what they want - no change in what would have been the correct enforcement, yet you are insisting there is a change. Maybe you are taking this removal of "intentional" farther than the national staff wants?

[mcrowder]

There was no rule change.

Just a wording change to help those umpires who were previously ruling incorrectly to now find it easier to rule correctly.

If the "new" wording is causing you to now rule correctly, and this ruling differs from what you would have done last year ... then it follows that you were ruling incorrectly LAST year, and this wording change has got you to rule correctly.

So I guess the wording change worked for you.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

There was no rule change.

Just a wording change to help those umpires who were previously ruling incorrectly to now find it easier to rule correctly.

If the "new" wording is causing you to now rule correctly, and this ruling differs from what you would have done last year ... then it follows that you were ruling incorrectly LAST year, and this wording change has got you to rule correctly.

So I guess the wording change worked for you.

Really?

Scenario by Dakota:

Bases loaded. BR hits the ball. R1 coming home; throw is to home to retire R1 on the force. F2 standing between home plate at R1. F2 gains possession just before R1 arrives. R1 does not slide. R1 is tagged out, but gets tangled up with F2 as F2 is attempting to throw to somewhere to retire another runner. No malicious contact.

Your answer:

The whole thing hinges on intent.......... All that matters here is whether the umpire in question felt that R1 stayed standing in order to prevent a double play. If HE felt that was the case, then he made the right call.

Same call and answer from last year for this year?


Cause I got INT this year, scenario taken at face value.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

wade, those two highlighted statements appear to me to be incompatible. The national staff is telling you what they want - no change in what would have been the correct enforcement, yet you are insisting there is a change. Maybe you are taking this removal of "intentional" farther than the national staff wants?

They are softshoeing it to prevent whimpering grumbling or over officiating on the change.. It's a change.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Really?
Cause I got INT this year, scenario taken at face value.

Intent to break up a double play is still interference - both this year and last year. I see no difference in the call on this play between LY and TY. I have INT LY and TY if (HTBT) I felt there was intent on the runner's part to break up a possible DP.

You seem to have a difference on thsi play between TY and LY, but you don't explain why - can you explain?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Intent to break up a double play is still interference - both this year and last year. I see no difference in the call on this play between LY and TY. I have INT LY and TY if (HTBT) I felt there was intent on the runner's part to break up a possible DP.

You seem to have a difference on thsi play between TY and LY, but you don't explain why - can you explain?

Boy you went at that backasswards..

Because obviously...

You dont need "Intent to break up a double play" for their to be INT.

Intent was removed from the rule and it is not used in determining INT.

Your entire opinion last year hinged on determining the retired runners intent.

You're saying that hasnt changed for you this year and you would respond to the scenario the same?

Maybe you need to reexamine what ASA is looking for if you think intent is a prerequisite.

[wadeintothem]

And for the record MC, you might review the MAR 2007 clarifications before you respond.. they have a scenario where a retired R unintentionally interferes with a DP.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Intent was removed from the rule and it is not used in determining INT.

Not in all circumstances. Refer to ASA 8.2.E, 8.2.L, 8.7.J.4, 8.7.L, 8.7.O, ...

"Intent" was only removed from specific rules. Might want to brush up on which ones still have it and which ones don't.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by SRW

Not in all circumstances. Refer to ASA 8.2.E, 8.2.L, 8.7.J.4, 8.7.L, 8.7.O, ...

"Intent" was only removed from specific rules. Might want to brush up on which ones still have it and which ones don't.

I dont even need a book to know where it still is in there.. Must I state "INT not involving coaches" everytime I discuss INT?

Are you both going to strawman me to death?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

They are softshoeing it to prevent whimpering grumbling or over officiating on the change...

And.... you know this how???

[SRW]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I dont even need a book to know where it still is in there..

Arrogance? Nawh... not you.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Must I state "INT not involving coaches" everytime I discuss INT?

No, but you shouldn't make broad statements like you did. Lots of "young" umps read some things on here verbatum.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Are you both going to strawman me to death?

Quite possibly, yes. You're fun to pick on.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I dont even need a book to know where it still is in there.. Must I state "INT not involving coaches" everytime I discuss INT?

Might want to check the book again. That is not the only rule where intent survived.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

And for the record MC, you might review the MAR 2007 clarifications before you respond.. they have a scenario where a retired R unintentionally interferes with a DP.

Speaking of a straw man argument???

This clarification refers to a runner which gave up on the play and ACTED in a manner other than that natural to the game.

If this runner, retired or not, stays the course toward the base and does nothing more, it is not INT though there are umpires and coaches who now believe it is because of the different wording.

BTW, I have a problem with a couple of the rulings in this clarification. In #2 & #4, it mentions a batter and runner who has scored (R2), respectively, being hit with a ball thrown in the direction of home for a play.

Base on the presumption that both incidents actually caused the defense to not get an out, the rulings are correct. #2 sort of alludes to this point, but #4 doesn't. In #4, it simply states that R2 was hit by the throw. What if the throw is already beyond the plate and the C never had a chance to get the runner out? Are you still going to rule INT?

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking of a straw man argument???

This clarification refers to a runner which gave up on the play and ACTED in a manner other than that natural to the game.

If this runner, retired or not, stays the course toward the base and does nothing more, it is not INT though there are umpires and coaches who now believe it is because of the different wording.

BTW, I have a problem with a couple of the rulings in this clarification. In #2 & #4, it mentions a batter and runner who has scored (R2), respectively, being hit with a ball thrown in the direction of home for a play.

Base on the presumption that both incidents actually caused the defense to not get an out, the rulings are correct. #2 sort of alludes to this point, but #4 doesn't. In #4, it simply states that R2 was hit by the throw. What if the throw is already beyond the plate and the C never had a chance to get the runner out? Are you still going to rule INT?

Absolutely not.

[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.