|
When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent
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. |
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= |
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... |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.. |
Quote:
|
Ah--more memories. Back when I still had an outside protector (yes--a "raft") with my gear-- I was getting hit all over too. I called for time out--went to my car and brought out the venerable piece of gear. All
the balls bounced off that thing and no more bruises, etc. I sometimes wish we could still use them. |
Quote:
Damn fine idea! |
Quote:
I think the lack of style is the only reason for not using it. |
Quote:
I'll drink to that. I started with one of them too. 'Course, I started at 14 & that was more than a couple of years ago. I think they are probably more protective AND I think they are much cooler in those hot & humid games. |
Quote:
A buddy of mine facing a similar situation in a rec league game went to the dugout and inquired about the possibility of a new catcher. He was told that the two regular catchers were not there and this one was the only player that would volunteer to catch. He solved the issue by borrowing a spare mitt from the dugout and using it behind the plate to defend himself. |
I still have my old bubble protector, and it's in the car during the season. I've pulled it out exactly twice - both times in EXACTLY the situation you describe -- pitcher with good velocity, catcher with no experience and no viable alternative.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31pm. |