Interference?

[MrRabbit]

I suggest that everyone read ASA R/S 33.

This is a classic case of interference, "Verbal Distraction".

The rule is very clear, the offensive player did intend to to impede, hinder, or confuse the defensive player when she yelled I got it.

We as umpires do get to decide what her reasoning was for yell I got it.

DMO.

Or to wait to see if the defensive player has a reaction to the yell or catches the ball.

When she yells, I call it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I suggest that everyone read ASA R/S 33.

This is a classic case of interference, "Verbal Distraction".

The rule is very clear, the offensive player did intend to to impede, hinder, or confuse the defensive player when she yelled I got it.

We as umpires do get to decide what her reasoning was for yell I got it.

DMO.

Or to wait to see if the defensive player has a reaction to the yell or catches the ball.

When she yells, I call it.

Say, Thumper, you really need to start citing the post to which you are replying. Thank you.

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

R1 yells "I got it", F4 muffs the catch; almost assuredly NOTHING. R1 yells "I got it", and F4 flinchs away, or backs off from a ball camped under, much more likely interference.

Bottom line (in my judgement), if F4 is catching the ball regardless the call, and fails, too bad, F4 failed. If F4 reacts thinking a teammate is calling off, more possibly verbal interference.

I suggest that everyone read ASA R/S 33.

This is a classic case of interference, "Verbal Distraction".

The rule is very clear, the offensive player did intend to to impede, hinder, or confuse the defensive player when she yelled I got it.

We as umpires do get to decide what her reasoning was for yell I got it.

DMO.

Or to wait to see if the defensive player has a reaction to the yell or catches the ball.

When she yells, I call it.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Though while "considered" acceptable in baseball, it is just as "bush" as the original act, not to mention assault. Everyone talks about how this is part of the game with a snicker until it is their child injured by such an acceptable response.

Is it going to take a death before some of these idiots wake up and understand the repercussion of such a stupid act?

Wasn't talking youth ball here.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

R1 yells "I got it", F4 muffs the catch; almost assuredly NOTHING. R1 yells "I got it", and F4 flinchs away, or backs off from a ball camped under, much more likely interference.

Bottom line (in my judgement), if F4 is catching the ball regardless the call, and fails, too bad, F4 failed. If F4 reacts thinking a teammate is calling off, more possibly verbal interference.

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I suggest that everyone read ASA R/S 33.

This is a classic case of interference, "Verbal Distraction".

The rule is very clear, the offensive player did intend to to impede, hinder, or confuse the defensive player when she yelled I got it.

We as umpires do get to decide what her reasoning was for yell I got it.

DMO.

Or to wait to see if the defensive player has a reaction to the yell or catches the ball.

When she yells, I call it.

Well, MrRabbit, it is good to see you passionately stating your position. Unfortunately for you, your own rule citation doesn't support your position; not even a little bit. You are reading something into that R/S that simply isn't there, and your explanation, if used in championship play, would get your call reversed on protest, and runners awarded bases without any outs.

Here is what the rule states:

Originally Posted by ASA 2009 R/S #33

Interference is the act of an offensive player that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play.

Read again carefully, MrRabbit; the verbal distraction is only interference if it hinders the fielder. You make the call before a play is attempted, without any reaction from the fielder, and use your explanation, guess what; you killed the play before there could be a judgment of interference. You didn't judge interference on a play, you killed a live play before any such judgment could be made; and BR is awarded first, all other runners advance if forced.

Originally Posted by ASA 2009 R/S #33, continued

A. Runner interference includes:
b) ... deflects off one defensive player and the runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player who has an opportunity to make an out.
c) A runner could be standing on a base .... if the defensive player fails to make a catch on a ball that could have been caught, it is the umpire's judgment whether or not interference should be called. ....... In THIS CASE the runner should not be called out unless the interference is intentional.

Your contention that you only need to judge intent to rule verbal interference isn't here!! The only situations to use intent as a judgment on runner interference are stated here; clearly, succinctly. In EVERY case, there must be a defensive player hindered; in only these cases may the umpire use intent to determine interference.

Oh yeah; it actually states "fails to make a catch"!! Mr(Jack)Rabbit, how can that happen when you declared interference as soon as you heard a yell? There was no interference with a play during the live ball portion; you just rewarded the offense for their efforts, and took the out attempt away from the defensive player.

I repeat my previous statement; if the defensive player is hindered, declare interference. But see the hindrance; it has to happen. If the defensive player ignores the yell, and is clearly unphased by the noise, but simply "muffs" the catch (which was the original post), then you have nothing more than a muffed catch (or poor judgment on the part of the umpire, if then declared interference).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Wasn't talking youth ball here.

I don't care what age level, it is chicken **** and an absolute cowardly response to ANYTHING.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't care what age level, it is chicken **** and an absolute cowardly response to ANYTHING.

Not disagreeing with you on this....just stating a afct of baseball life.

[jmkupka]

R1 on 3b, walked BR rounds 1b towards 2b, F1 raises throwing arm (so R1 is free to step off 3b).
As F1 turns to address R1, BR calls "hey, hey" to F1 to bring her attention back to the rundown between 1b & 2b. Not once, but every time F1 looked back at R1. Of course, one P.O.'d DC. Do you have interference on this?

[Tex]

No. What you have is one P.O. DC and F1 who don’t know the rules for the “Look Back Rule”. Because F1 raised her hand, the Look Back rule is off. Have F1 lower hand and everything should reset. F1 should not raise her hand.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by Tex

No. What you have is one P.O. DC and F1 who don’t know the rules for the “Look Back Rule”. Because F1 raised her hand, the Look Back rule is off. Have F1 lower hand and everything should reset. F1 should not raise her hand.

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by robbie

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

The way I'm reading that, I'd have a very hard time calling interference.

Are you saying, with F1 holding the ball, you would call interference simply because BR said "hey, hey"?

I just can't picture it.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by robbie

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

What, exactly, are you basing your call of interference on? A player talking? If so, do you call interference every time they use one of those chants aimed at the other team? If not, why? Isn't the intent of the chant, at least partially, to get into the head of the other team? Do you call interference when a coach is yelling "go, go, go," and the player, in their infinite wisdom pulls up at third anyway, and a throws goes home because the defense might have heard the coach yelling???

Interference can only be called when something has been done by the offense to actively hinder a play. I just don't see that here.

The players, both offense and defense, are supposed to know the situation of the game. I would be interested in hearing your support for the call of interference.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by robbie

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

Robbie, are all of your ball games silent? It seems like you'll call verbal interference any time an offensive player or coach opens their mouth.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by robbie

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

Yes, she did and no interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by robbie

But, she did - and Yes, interference.

It's been a while, but let me try to be the gentler voice.

When the interference definition, rule, or Rule Supplement state that there need not be contact, or that something "may be" considered verbal interference, that isn't meant to say that any verbal attempt or noise made by the offense is therefore automatically determined interference. In fact, this is intended to only cover the EXTREME cases, the exceptions, where it is obvious to the blind man two blocks away that the fielder was hindered or distracted.

The wording of the rule ("MAY BE") should make you understand that verbal isn't automatic, and is never "textbook" (as another poster stated). The wording ALLOWS you to judge it interference (in the extreme); it doesn't MAKE it interference (when in the norm).

Hope that assists you (and MrRabbit) in grasping what others are saying here, almost unanimously.