I was BU for a high school game.Situation> runners on 2nd and 3rd two out. Ground ball hit to the left of SS as she moves (slightly) to the ball...the runner from second makes contact (slightly).Ball went into center field, (2)runs score. I felt it was "incidental contact"...defensive coach thought differently...he expressed...(with proper decorum) that he thought it was interference. He asked if I would check with PU to see if he had a "better look." I did..PU said he thought it was definitely interference. Since I was not 100% sure..I changed the call..runner from second OUT no runs score. Offensive team had "mild" objection..but no big deal.

My questions: 1)Were proper mechanics used? 2) If I had stuck with my call and explained that I felt that the fielder (in the act of) moved into the baserunner thus causing the (incidental) contact...I probably would have sold it...is a play like this pure, absolute judgement? Or is there a definitive methodolgy used in making this call?

Any reply would be appreciated!

Thanks,
Dougie

It's judgement - was this the fielder who had a play on that ball - and should be called by either PU or BU. I don't think I can see "incidental" contact on the basepaths. If the fielder has a play on the ball, it's interference. But if the fielder has no chance at making a play on that ball, it's obstruction.

That being said, on to your questions. Were the proper mechanics used? By you, almost - it's either interference or obstruction, so make one of those calls. By your partner, no. Since he felt it was definitely interference, he should have made the call when it happened. That was the right decision on your part to get together with your partner when the coach asked since the coach did so properly. For your second question, I don't think you could or should have tried to sell the "incidental" contact. But, like I said above, it is judgement. A couple of the considerations to make - Was this the fielder who should have been making the play - you've got to protect the fielder who is doing what she should be doing. Was there a valid play on the ball, check your books to see what a "play" means since Fed & ASA differ on what that means.

Steve M

Definite HTBT play.......but

Doug........the first question I would ask myself........

Did the fielder have and <b>any</b> chance at fielding the ball?

If you can answer yes to that question.....then call the interference.......if no.......(did the fielder hinder the runner).......you may have obstruction........

Case in play.......

R1, no outs........

High pop-up in foul territory in shallow right........

R1 and F3 get tangled........<b>No</b> way can F3 make this play........interference? I think not.......

I once had a coach who wanted the interference call.......I can only protect one fielder.......and the F3 was not it in this case.........

Hope this helps.........

Joel

Did the SS have a chance to make a play(get to the ball)? Then its interference.
The coach did the right thing in coming out in a professional manner and asking you to speak with your partner. You could have said that "coach, it is my call and that's what I have". What you did was proper, speak to your partner and you can still say "coach, it is my call and that's what I have".
Umpires that work together are better umpires. In that situation you are in C and may not have the same angle on the hit ball as the PU does. It is not a sign of weakness to go with your partners judgement it is a sign of teamwork to get the call right.

Dougie,

I do not think that by the way you described the play,
that you could have sold incidential contact if the runner in fact did run into the fielder in the act of fielding the
ball as you stated. That is pure and simple interference.
But probably a HTBT play. Interefence should be called at
once and not after you and your partner have a "gathering"
JMO,

glen

Looks like Joel, Steve, Rachel, and myself were all trying
to get our post out about same time. Some repeat answers.
Works for me.

glen

Did ya ever see the three stooges routine where they all try to go through the door at the same time? They get locked in the doorway.

Ya'But.........there were four of us.........I think that is the scene where we all fall back and fall on our butts.........grin.....

But......seeing as we all pretty much gave the same advice............grin......

Joel

Since Glen hs 500 more posts than I do I want to add to my reply. Either umpire can call interference but it looks bad if it is not called right away. The plate ump probably didn't want to show you up since you were right there. If the SS could not have gotten to the ball then the SS obstructed the runner. I don't see where incedental contact can be a call in this situation.

Thanks to all for the great responses...that call (interference v. obstruction) has always been a challenge..
I know what the "books" say but you know as well as I that "seeing" it happen is alot different than reading about it :-)
The bottom line is, as always, to get the call right...I think my partner and I did...
thanks again..I look forward to "talking" more this season!
Dougie

Rachel,

Welcome to the board. Apparently I missed your first couple
of post. Nice to have you with us. :D

I agree that either umpire can call interference and I also
agree that it should be called immediately. So should the
obstruction call. If plate felt he had interference, then
he should have called it <b>when it occurred</b>. He has that
right and obligation. Then main thing is, as stated
"get it right", which Dougie and his partner did.

glen

The interference/obstruction call can be very tough. Most of the time, it happens quickly and it takes me a second to digest what I just saw.

Our association is promoting a new signal for these type situations that look like something, but the umpire rules that nothing happened. It is basically a "safe" signal, but with the fists closed and no verbal. I have used it a few times and I like it. It lets you communicate that you saw the play and you have no rule infraction.

Does any other area use this?

Andy,

What if the third base coach sees only one arm extended with the closed fist because F6 is blocking the view of your other arm? Coach thinks he's got obstruction and this could change the decision he makes with this runner. How do you explain the "unofficial" mechanics to him after his runner gets called out?

Do we create more problems when we implement new mechanics only on a local level?

Gary

That is a soccer mechaninc that basicly says "play on". I think that part of our job is to explain to coaches what we saw but I don't think that additional mechanics help that. Let them come out and question you they learn the rules better that way.

Thanks for the response, Andy...I have to agree, however, with the others on your use of the "new signal."
I think we have a sufficient amount of signals etc..to cover every conceivable play or situation..As you stated that call(interference/obstruction/incidental contact)is a challenge but that's ok cause now I will work EVEN harder to get that call right! Furthermore, I don't think the new signal will deter a coach from "questioning" (politely I hope) your call and could prove to be confusing to, not only, coaches and players but your partner who could easily "misinterpret" your signal as "obstruction/delayed dead ball."
I think that your idea is good in theory but could cause problems in actual practice.
regards,
dougie