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.

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.

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.

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.

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 have a similar one. A few years ago I was working a fall league, 16u. One team was a traditionally strong program all from the same school. After two innings of being hit by nearly every pitch that wasn't a strike, I told the coach his catcher was killing me. He's reply, "Sorry Blue that's my SS, my catcher is at home with the flu." I shook my head and walked away.

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.

In the shed by this field are a couple of those. I could use it. No problem. Might be a little better than making some little kid who just happens to suck at catcher cry. :D Next time I see the evil little purple shirts, I'm going to toss it in the dugout just in case.

Damn fine idea!

Yep, I started umpiring using a balloon and to be quite honest with you, I believe it is a better piece of equipment that what is used today. An umpire does not lose any mobility and in the slot, still has full view of the plate and strike zone.

I think the lack of style is the only reason for not using it.

Mike,
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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

Got it. Thanks.

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.

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

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

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.

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 :D

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

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. :eek: Okay, just a bit of exaggeration, but you get the point.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:
Your answer:

Same call and answer from last year for this year?


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

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

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.. :D

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.

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.

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?

And.... you know this how??? :rolleyes:

Arrogance? Nawh... not you. ;)
No, but you shouldn't make broad statements like you did. Lots of "young" umps read some things on here verbatum.
Quite possibly, yes. You're fun to pick on. :D

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

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.

;)
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.

Actually, a retiring runner turning to go to the dugout is an entirely natural to the game.

The clarification, IMO, represents the view that if a runner does something such as commit an error in judgment, that too is INT. It doesnt require that they do so with the intent to interfere. The runner in #2 obviously did not intend to interfere, the runner just chose the wrong place to be. The change holds them more accountable for their actions.

Same with the scenario where last year, mccrowder was solely focussed on the umpire judging the runners intent - this year that is not required. The runner who was tagged out is then accountable not to interfere with the play.

Your points on the other examples are well taken, the only issue I'm pointing out is there is a change in the presentation of enforcement. This is shored up by Clarification #2 referencing Rule 8, Section 7 J [3] which no longer requires intent.

Its a guess as to why they make a change, provide written examples representing a change, then put out language in clinic "there is no change".

If you have another guess as to why they made changes, presented changes as changes, then said "no changes" I'm willing to hear it.

It has already been stated. Some doofus (my word without knowing who this was) was all hot and bothered that the definition did not contain the word "intent" or "intentional" and was bound and determined to make the playing rules themselves "consistent" with this. There was some thought that umpires were not making the interference call because they could not "prove" intent. They never had to prove intent; they only had to judge it based on the actions of the offense. It was all hooey that has done nothing whatsoever productive toward any improvement in enforcement and has caused umpires to conclude there is now a change to the rules that must be reflected in changed enforcement.

I mean fer cryin' out loud, of all things to be concerned about in the use of the English language consistently in the ASA rule book, why they chose THIS one is beyond me.

So now umpires are going overboard and considering a cross-eyed look as interference since it startled the poor defender. OK, clearly hype there, but definitive action to interfere is not the same thing as any slight movement that somehow got in the way maybe.

I think it would be more accurate to state: definitive action THAT interferes.

The word "to" implies intent, which of course, is not required.