Interference?

[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).