BR interference with catcher fielding bunt
 

Do the normal interference rules apply when it involves a catcher and a BR on a bunt play? The catcher is little and extremely quick. On each of these scenarios she is knocked on her keister by the larger slower BR. In each case assume RH batter.

1. Bunt up third base line, batter still completely in box.
2. Bunt in front of plate, batter has one foot in the box.
3. Bunt towards first base line, batter completely out of box.

Speaking ASA

As long as the BR and C are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, this is nothing. However, if either does something not associated with the play (i.e. push the other), it could be either INT or OBS.

ASA Rule 8-2-f
 

ASA Rule 8-2-f says a batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Per Definitions, the catcher is a fielder. In the post, isn't the batter-runner interfering with a fielder attemptin to field a batted ball? Am I missing something?

Bassman, Here's one for memory lane...........
 

Not wanting to take chances with a novice batsman like Eastwick, Anderson selected the latter option. He called upon backup outfielder Ed Armbrister, a mere .185 hitter during the regular season but an acceptable bunter. Armbrister’s job was simple: move Geronimo to second base and allow the formidable top of Cincinnati’s order to drive home the winning run.

Squaring himself into bunting position, Armbrister nubbed the ball in front of the plate. Perhaps not realizing that he had hit the ball into fair territory, Armbrister hesitated before breaking toward first. Just as he started running, Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk stepped over home plate in an effort to field the bouncing bunt. Fisk and Armbrister collided, delaying the catcher’s pursuit of the ball. Once Fisk picked up the ball, he extricated himself from Armbrister with a sturdy glove-hand shove, set himself quickly, and hurtled a throw toward second base. The ball sailed high and to the right of Rick Burleson’s fully extended arm, tipping off the edge of the shortstop’s glove and carrying into center field. Fred Lynn retrieved the ball and unfurled a strong throw to third, but Geronimo slid into third just before Rico Petrocelli’s quick tag made contact with his body. Armbrister, in spite of his late start from the plate and his momentary tangle with Fisk, settled in at second base.

Vaulting themselves from their seats in the dugout, Red Sox players and coaches screamed for an interference call on Armbrister. Fisk joined his teammates in pleading with home plate umpire Larry Barnett. "He bunted the ball, it shot right up in the air, he stood there. I had to go up for a rebound over him to get the ball, he stood right there," Fisk explained to Murray Chass of The New York Times. "He’s got to get out of my way. If he stays in the [batter’s] box, there’s no argument. But he’s in fair territory, in front of the plate… Why can’t there be [interference called]? You might as well throw a body block at the catcher, then run to first."

In watching the play develop from the opposing dugout, Johnny Bench believed that Fisk might have anticipated the call of interference as he fielded the ball. "At that particular instant, I think [Carlton] thought about the [possibility of] interference," Bench recalls. "I think more than anything, rather than reacting to the play—because Ed was still standing at home plate and [Carlton] had all the time in the world to throw it to second—and I think that for that split-second, he thought about interference. He was waiting for the call. He could make that play 990 times out of a thousand if you gave him that chance." Instant replays showed that once Fisk had pushed Armbrister aside, there was enough separation between the two of them to allow the catcher to set himself and make a strong throw. Fisk made a strong throw, but not an accurate one.

Fisk also had a chance to tag Armbrister on the play and then make the throw to second base in an effort to complete a double play. "When I did shove [Armbrister] aside, he stopped," Fisk explained to Lowell Reidenbaugh of The Sporting News, "and maybe I tagged him out, I don’t know." Television replays showed that Fisk had tagged Armbrister all right, but with his empty glove hand, and not with his bare hand, which cradled the baseball.

If Fisk had tagged Armbrister properly, Geronimo still would have been allowed to advance to third, with only man out; that would have remained a tough situation for Boston. A call of interference by Barnett would have provided the Red Sox with a far better scenario: Armbrister would have been called out for obstructing Fisk—and Geronimo would have been ordered to return to first base.

Not surprisingly, Armbrister saw things far differently from Fisk and the Red Sox. "After I bunted," Armbrister told The New York Times, " I kind of watched it for just a second. As it took a high bounce, I think [Fisk] came from behind me. He reached out and hit me on the leg. He interfered with me."

Yet, Barnett didn’t see any legitimate cause for calling interference on Fisk—or, more significantly, on Armbrister. "When the ball was hit," Barnett explained after the game, "I yelled ‘Fair, fair, in play!’ Armbrister did nothing intentional to interfere with Fisk."

The question of Armbrister’s "intent" was apparently not raised by Barnett during his on-field argument with Johnson, but became a burning issue after the game. "It is only interference when the batter intentionally gets in the way of the fielder," Barnett told Ron Fimrite of Sports Illustrated—after the game. A referral to one of the sections in the Official Baseball Rules seemed to support Barnett’s rationale. According to subsection H of Rule 7.09, says interference should be called "if, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play." The rule stipulated that if the umpire deemed such interference intentional, then a double play should be called.

Yet, some members of the media questioned whether Rule No. 7.09 (H) should really be applied to a situation like the one involving Armbrister and Fisk. As legendary sportswriter Red Smith aptly noted in the October 15th edition of The New York Times, that particular rule had been put in place several years earlier as a specific response to a trick play used by Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers. On more than one occasion, Robinson had intentionally allowed batted balls to hit him between first and second base. Although the existing rules of the day obligated umpires to call Robinson out for obvious interference, the fielding team no longer had the chance to turn a double play. Since Robinson’s ploy created an unfair advantage for the offense, a new rule was created.

Therefore, perhaps Rule No. 7.09 didn’t apply to a collision between a catcher and a batter, at all. Some members of the media felt that Rule No. 6.06, which made specific mention of the catcher, should become the reference point for Armbrister-Fisk. According to that rule, a batter should be called out if he "interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." The rule contained no stipulation that interference on the part of the batter had to be "intentional." And while Armbrister had not stepped out of the batter’s box in making contact with Fisk, he had certainly "hindered" the catcher in both fielding the ball and making the throw. Based on the interpretation of this rule, it seemed that Barnett had erred in making the call.

Yet, in reality, the umpires weren’t being governed by either of the two conflicting rules in question. "It was merely a collision," Barnett told reporters in explaining the nature of the contact between Armbrister and Fisk. Merely a collision. That was the key word in Barnett’s dictionary. According to a supplemental instructional rules book given only to major league umpires and not made available publicly—a book that helped them interpret vague or confusing rules and situations—a collision between the catcher and batter on a batted ball was to be treated as incidental to the play. "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball," the supplemental instruction stated, "there is generally no violation and nothing should be called."

"The instructions specifically cover this play," said George Maloney, the second base umpire in Game Three, as part of a revealing interview with the Louisville Times. "[The instructions] clearly state that no call will be made involving contact between a batter and a catcher. They are saying, in essence, that both have rights: the catcher to field the ball, the runner to advance to first. It is to be treated as a collision—nothing else."

An appeal of the call to first base umpire Dick Stello produced only additional support for Barnett’s call—and for Maloney’s explanation. "The batter," explained Stello, "has as much right to go to first base as the fielder has to go for the ball." End of argument. Or at least the umpires hoped so.

With Stello and Barnett holding firm on their decision, the call stood on its original platform: no one out for interference, and runners at second at third. As Sparky Anderson, in conversation with Sports Illustrated, would so aptly summarize the controversial soap opera involving Armbrister, Fisk, Barnett, and Stello: "The guys in the bars will be talking about that play until spring training." And then some.

$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?
--------------------------------------------
Why do you ask?

reccer
You have interference in this one , no question .
Irish
What sort of statement is that " as long as the catcher(fielder) and BR are doing what they are supposed to be doing we have nothing ."
Thats hogwash the BR or R cannot inerefere with a batted ball they have to get out of the way
same as if BR crashed into the fielder 3 up 1st base line its interference .
And Ive been called lenient on my INTF calls ,some of you guys need to read the INTF rule

:confused:

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
[yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop. :D

You might try reading the exceptions.

Paul

Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.

Tell me then I still have INTF

Can you cite a rule?
 

[QUOTE=Steve M]$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Bassman's tale involved major league baseball rules, not ASA.

Can you cite an ASA rule or POE that supports such an exception? I don't have my 07 book here, but in the 04 book from my bookshelf, Rule 8-2-f and POE 32 seem pretty explicit and don't mention any exception for batter-runners and catchers situations. Extract from POE 32: Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field...without being hindered.

Also, if a runner is running from second base to third base after a ball has been hit, and the shortstop is trying to field the batted ball, aren't both of them doing what they should be doing, and does that mean that if the runner runs into the shortstop it's nothing?

Please go to page 236 in the 2007 ASA Rule Book, Umpire Manual and start reading at the top of the page.

In the 2004 book, it is on page 233

Thank you.
 

Page 233 of my 2004 ASA rule book has to do with Council Meetings, but if you say there is an exception in the Umpire's Manual or somewhere, that's good enough for me.

Mike was talking about the Umpire Edition of the rule book. You apparently have the coach's edition.

Is the reason that plays are treated differently when the BR and catcher are involved (I think Steve M used the term 'exception') that the the immediacy of the play and proximity of the BR and F2 make it virtually impossible (in some plays, like the ones in the OP) for them to react in a way (while playing normally) that would prevent any sort of interaction between them?

IOW on some plays, they are potentially tangled up on their first step, with no time to avoid one another, in contrast to the sitch posted of a runner from 2B to 3B interfering with F6 fielding a batted ball in which the runner generally has sufficient reaction time to avoid interfering(?)

That Makes Sense...But
 

It might have been a good idea to put the exception into the coach's edition of the rule book so we would know what to tell our catchers and batters about bunting, especially since the rule and the POE are so clear and explicit. Well, that's why it's good to have boards like this, and I appreciate the umpires taking their time to post here.

No, because then it will turn into a strategy, just like the LBR. Just have your players play the game and do what they are supposed to do.

since I can speak from both sides of the fence:

The Team Edition of the rulebook contains the code, largely because there can and are things coaches and others involved with a team need to research during the year. Hopefully, you are amongst the few that actually read it. For some reason we keep having these pesky pickup players who coaches want to have play for their team in some championship events for which pickup players aren't eligible. Those and other issues are addressed in the code.

For the most part, umpires aren't interested in the code. That;s the administrator's part: commissioners, JO commissioners, their deputies, tournament directors and the like.

Hence, the book umpires receive have a manual that explains certain things.

If you ask your commissioner/JO commissioner, a deputy, or a player rep, they should be able to get an umpire's edition to you if you want one. They may be out of 2007 books, but you could reserve a 2008 edition.

On a side note, you might tell your commissioner you'd like to have the umpire-in-chief or their representative at your ACE classes next year (if you are in JO ball) or a league meeting. It can really help ford the chasm that some feel exists between players/coaches and umpires. It certainly works well for us here in the Seattle/Tacoma Association.

FYI - ASA Umpire Rule Book 2007 Page 235 at the bottom. Irish is 100% correct. No call.

re: BR interference with catcher fielding bunt
 

What!!! A rule interpretation should not be available to coaches, because it maybe turned in to a strategy, what a load of pooh!

All rules, exceptions, notes, and interpretations used to play the game should be available to all parties involved with said game(coaches, players, umpires, and fans) in some standard form(written, electronic, etc)!

How can the players play the game with in the rules if they do not know them, because the do not have them!

GaryB

Gary, for you, this is a dumb comment. You have access to everything an umpire has, it just isn't wrapped up with a bow on it.

Really? Whats that book you get with your registration? A rule book, maybe? And to be quite honest, even those who read the rule book, most coaches don't have a clue. There is more to knowing how to officiate a game than reading words on a page.

Rant on!

Pooh this! Players should just play the game, period. The coaches and players should play the game by the rules, period. If you want interpretations, start going to some clinics, exclamation point!

We are not your babysitters and my point as to it becoming strategy is so valid, it isn't even funny. I guarantee there will now be some coach teaching his/her players to try and time their advance to 1B to cut off the catcher. When the umpire calls INT, the moaning (do coaches do that?) will begin and the umpire will eventually end up tossing some yahoo who is trying to bend the rules instead of playing the game straight up. We hear it CONSTANTLY in almost every tournament. Blue, she's leaving early. Blue, she's illegal. Blue, she cannot stop once she starts that way. Blue, you called her safe, you cannot now call her out. Blue, her sunglasses are distracting my batter. Blue, are you sure she can wear a white sleeve while pitching. Waa Waa Waa!

Steve M. what do you think your buddy from Ohio would try to do with something like this if he actually read the book including the umpire's manual? Don't think he would whine too much when his player gets rung up for INT, do you?

Apparently, somewhere along the way, some coaches got the idea that "working the umpire" is part of the game and it is never personal. Well, guess what? When we tell you to leave the park, it isn't personal, you deserved it.

We are not there to be "worked". We are there to apply the rules as instructed, not to be a substitute for your wife when you feel that badgering someone is the best offense.

What the umpires are discussing here is direction of how to handle a certain situation. If you want to call the book, fine. Every time, it is going to be INT and catchers will be jumping into your batters just to draw the call. Why? Because coaches will be coaching that scenario. What do you think the possibility of injury is going to be in that scenario?

Let them play the game. Knowing the rules is great. Coaching to the rules instead of the game is a disservice to the players, team and the game itself.

Rant off!

The thing that has always made me go "WHY?!" is the fact that there are multiple editions of the rule book. Coaches' Edition. Umpire's Edition. UIC's Edition.

I agree that there should be one, and only one version of the rule book. For example, does it not say in the UIC version that umpires should not wear jewelry (I've never seen the UIC Edition, but I could have sworn someone on this forum has said that in another thread)? Why doesn't the Umpire's Edition say that?

My suggestion: one rule book. Period. All the same rules and all the same Rules Supplements in one book. You'll have a lesser likelihood of inconsistent print between the two versions. If you're a coach, get the rule book a separate coach's manual. If you're an umpire, you get the same rule book with a separate Umpire's Manual. If you're a UIC, get the same rule book and get the separate UIC manual.

I'm still waiting for the Fans' Edition, but I guess that one is always subject to change. ;)

I'll start with completely agreeing with Mike's rant. That's not really part of playing the game - let's call it part of the on field administrative stuff.

Mike - as for my buddy in Ohio - I'm quite sure he'd tell me that he'd handle it with the uic - oh, wait, he did just that. And I allowed him to go see the uic.......

Nope, if you want in the Umpire Secret Society and to get to learn all the secret strat stuff we know: go through the hazing, pay the dues and learn the handshake.

Til then, just teach em how to play.

Been there done that!

If you do not have all the rules, you can not teach em how to play, let alone how to play by the rules!

GaryB

Personal attack right off the bat, this should be good!

Really, then why does the rule book I get with my registration not have the rule exception you have spoken of?

Thats right I have to go and buy another rule book with the umpires manual in it.

I know a few umpires that don't have a clue.:D

Oh boy, here we go!!!!

How can they, if the rule books they are given to use are incomplete?

Why, I should be able to get them from the rule book myself.

No, but you make yourself into one when you are the only one privey to certain rule exceptions, because they are only listed in the umpires manual!

Is irrellavent. If a strategy is developed from a rules clarification or interpretation, so what?

Why should his buddy have to read the umpires manual for an exception to a rule?

Ahhh, now there was the real reason for the rant!!! :D

A situation that has an exception that is not availiable to all parties!

Until the exception is listed in the rules or POE this is how it should be.

Without the rules you have no valid game, without a valid game there is nothing to coach to, so the only way to coach is to the rules!

Ooooh, finished so soon!:D

There should be only one rule book, with the rules, all exceptions, all notes, and all interpreatations. This way everyone is on the same ground when it comes to the rules!

GaryB

What are you talking about? If there is a UIC edition, someone in OKC owes me a few rule books.

The rules and supplements are in all rule books. The difference between the Umpire and Team Editions is the Umpire Manual and ASA Code, respectively.

As far as wearing jewelry, there are a couple of reasons why an umpire should not wear jewelry.

#1 is that it is possible, and it happens, where a player does make contact with an umpire and you do not want contact with a watch, bracelet, ring with a hard edge or stone, etc. to cause harm to the player.

#2 is hypocrisy. If an umpire is going to go onto the field and tell players to not wear jewelry because it is dangerous, how would his/her be any less dangerous. See #1.

#3 is professionalism. And I'm not talking about all pieces of jewelry. However, just as an umpire is instructed to not wear some gaudy belt buckle, so would the same be with certain pieces of jewelry. Imagine Mr. T umpiring with all his bling.

It's not an exception, it is direction to an umpire, but I've said that before. Apparently, you are only interested in hearing yourself talk.

Just like an umpire must go and buy a copy of the Clinic Guide or Case Book if they desire to have that information. I offer free clinics to all ASA umpires and routinely have an open invitation to all coaches. In more than five years, I have yet to see a coach who was not an umpire attend any of our state clinics. I also have opened up our state umpire school to the local ASA programs at a discounted rate to help train their league umpires/parents so that the local leagues that cannot afford or attain regular umpires still have a taste of what they will see during a tournament. In the last five years, five have signed up, but only one has attended. The others just are not interested in providing a better game environment for their teams. I have been told by officers of leagues that they just don't feel it is that important that they would need to waste the registration money ($20).

So do I and it is because they do NOT attend clinics, schools or even attempt to further their knowledge of the rules and mechanics other then pick up a new rule book each year, just like many coaches.

They are not. That is a presumption on your behalf because you don't care for some of the answers you get.

How many times must you be reminded this is not an exception? I'm not going to repeat myself. Are you one of these e-teamz idiots that believes that if someone is deep into umpiring that they have never coached or does not know the game as a coach? I know you are not that dumb because your posts of the past have always been to a level of intelligence not demonstrated by many.

Hell, there are umpires out there that know the teams better than the coaches. You want a hint? If you ever see a base umpire move to a position that seems to be just a bit out of place, it is probably because they know the pitcher and batter well enough that they can anticipate where a batted ball will go or what play may come next. Admittedly, this is more prevelant in SP, but I've seen an umpire shade toward a play in all games just because they know what is coming next.

WHAT EXCEPTION? Let me give you the simplest explanation available. If the catcher and BR collide, as the umpire if I do not judge an act of interference by the BR, there is no interference, and that is the rule. The notation in the Umpire Manual is simply direction to ASA umpires in the manner in which rule 8.2.F.1 should be administered in this situation. That is part of the nationwide training ASA provides in an effort to assure teams that a call in CA will be the same as the call in PA. Obviously, because of the clueless umpires noted above, that will not happen if the umpire/UIC fail in their responsibility to attain/provide the appropriate training.

Rubbish!! A coach should be worried about teaching players how to hit, catch, field, throw and run. Players should be coached in the mechanics and how to play within the rules, not attempting to skirt them.

The exceptions are noted. They are the part of the rule where the paragraph begins with "EXCEPTION:" As for interpretations, I've explained to you how to obtain that information. If you choose not to make that effort, that's your issue, not the umpire's.

At least nobody would try to "work" him!

Mike,

There is no valid reason why all rule directions/execptions/interpretations should not be in a single rule book availiable to all. A coach should not have to buy an umpire's manual or attend a clinic in an attempt to understand the rules.

GaryB

Gary,

Is the black part of the plate?

Why shouldnt they?

Or why dont they conduct their own rules clinics?

At most rules clinics I attend.. mind you RULES CLINICS (open to all, like all clinic), you can count the number of coaches on 1 hand with fingers left over.

The vast majority are already overburdened just having to read the coaches edition.

Another coach who has either
1. not attended the prescribed ACE classes; or,
2. didn't pay attention at the ACE classes, but paid the $20 and has a certificate saying he attended.

I can assure you that if you attended the ACE classes you were supposed to attend and paid attention in the least, you wouldn't make a statement like that.

Again, I tell ya you can get the same copy of the rule book if you ask nicely. Your JO commissioner probably offered copies right before you dozed off. If you ask the way you have asked on this board, it should cost you at least 10 times the $9.95 asking price.