That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

Old news. This took place in November of 2006 within view of Pike's Peak.

I don't believe Canary had a position, just a question.

I don't understand you comments. The rule is written just fine. The only reason I fought against the change was to avoid overreaction-type of conversations like this one.

The purpose of the change was because the definition of interference does not include intent AND because interference is a judgment call, so the umpire should judge whether the player's actions caused the interference, not judge whether it was or was not intentional.

And we all know that because, like anyone who works ASA ball should do, we attended the appropriate clinics and schools.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?
Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

What is dumb is the ridiculous actions of runners on 3rd when they run toward the plate.

IMO, the OP indicates the runner was turned away from the plate, so I doubt there was any INT on behalf of the runner.

BTW, the runner determines their path and if it happens to be in the catcher's perceived throwing lane, the catcher better find another lane or don't throw the ball.

Yeah, it was DMC.

The umpires should only provide the protection of proper enforcement of the rules.

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.

You may not have familiarity with rules and I understand that, but believe me, there are MANY calls made to protect someone on a given play. Interference, OBS & Delayed dead ball, and infield fly rule are a few examples you could begin to learn about and we could help.

An umpire determining a runner deliberately blocked a thrown ball would be INT. Thats been stated as well.

As presented in the OP, it is dumb move catcher.

Youre very new here but DMC, DMR, DMP, etc are all very commonly used terms to describe dumb plays by players.. and yes DMU for .. you guessed it! Dumb Move Umpire.

That excellent answer was post #4 in the thread. We are now on page 3. I love the interwebs. :cool:

Take it easy. F2's coach is probably not thrilled with that throw either. F2's job is to keep runners from scoring and throwing the ball in a place where a teammate can't catch it is not the smartest move. Wade's description fits just fine.

In my games I've seen dumb moves by catchers, pitchers, batters, runners, coaches, even--yes--umpires.

Say what? :confused:

I understand you may not be very experienced, but after 40+ years of baseball and softball, I know the rules (and our job) are to protect the game, not the players.

"Deliberate" is the general consensus to avoid a call. *not* a rule. As already determined, it does not have to be intentional. Per the rules.

Your injecting your evaluation of a player into the rules. Weather it was DMC or not, does not dismiss INT, especially *IF* the runner saw the throw coming in. Maybe she did ... maybe she didn't. OP indicates the runner turned back before the throw. INT per the rule book?....weeeelllll .... yeah. Will we call it? Heck No. Chalk it up as a bad throw. But it is an interference. I guess I would have to actually watch the eye of the runner to tell if they were looking at the catcher when the ball was released, only then could I say she knew where the ball was, and she had the opportunity to dive back low to avoid contact with the ball.

But lets look at it backwards. Let say the runner did see the throw coming in. And the runner evaded the throw(and injury), but it caused the runner to go out of path and/or miss the base. Would it be OBS? I think so. The runner is awarded the base.

So..

• if the runner sees the throw coming in and takes a hit, its interference.
• if the runner sees the throw coming in and avoids INT, and as a result misses the base, it OBS.
• if the runner dose not see throw coming in and takes a hit, attempted base awarded.

Delayed dead ball.

Aaahhhhh, no, no and no. Sit down, you're out!

Big Grin :D

Legally running the bases. I believe that is a rule or concept. Why did the OP writer leave that out of his detailed analysis. Purposely or did not think of it?

If in the line of throw. Too bad for the thrower.

As for OCASA, with over 40 years of umpiring, I don't understand how you could come up with the 3 scenarios you have and think something could be wrong.

I am going to assume you were trying to get a rise out of somebody. If not, . . .

The catcher did what she wanted, threw down to third. Runner did what she was suppose to do: return to 3rd base. Throw hit her. It ain't nothing and to continue to beat this play is perplexing.

Any six year old kid on the sandlot with no rule knowledge would understand -- ain't nothing. (saw that wording in a movie)


Finally, umpires can have opinions of plays independent of the game. We can extricate ourselves from the game, look at a play and form an opinion on a play's intelligence or lack of it. Given that it is done from the keyboard, it is not interjecting. That is a stretch, over reach.

Sometimes players make dumb plays. Are they aware that is a dumb play. May be not but it still can be a dumb play. Those are separate issues and make sure you understand which one the writer is asserting. If not sure, ask.

Really? Well there have been new versions of the rule book written in the past 40 years - might want to grab a newer copy - it explains your role of protecting players on certain plays.

?

This makes no sense.


[quote]
Your injecting your evaluation of a player into the rules. Weather it was DMC or not, does not dismiss INT, especially *IF* the runner saw the throw coming in. Maybe she did ... maybe she didn't. OP indicates the runner turned back before the throw. INT per the rule book?....weeeelllll .... yeah.

[\quote]


No, its not INT per the book; but you havent read one in 40 years so you wouldnt know that, anymore than your role of protecting a player in certain isntances.

In addition to reading the book, you might want to attend a clinic. A book and a good clinic and you might get a grip on this ole INT thing.



Sad...

Really sad.

The call is to enforce the rule. The rule is to "protect" the players. In the some of cases you cite (interference and obstruction) the rule provides a remedy for an illegal action that has already occurred. Even in the case of delayed dead ball calls (obstruction and illegal pitch) the illegal action has already happened and the rule provides the remedy. The way you used "protect" was not in the spirit of the rules, it was meant as sarcasm to denigrate an action that you criticized as "dumb" and unworthy of your "protection". The rules provide protection for the offended team without regard to your opinion of the illegal act.

Whether I'm new or not I feel that using terms like this paints all umpires as unprofessional. The umpires job isn't to decide the value, worth or even "dumbness level" of the players and coaches actions, but whether or not they comply with the rules.

Well, you know what opinions are like? I'd suggest getting over it as it is in common usage on this MB; nonetheless, you are certainly entitled to opinion - its the very nature of this mb.

As for my opinion - some of you guys are spending way too much time worrying about the gravy while completely goofing up the steak and potatoes.