Interference?
 

This is posted on another message board with a discussion of whether this tactic is illegal, unethical, or "smart" playing. I want to get the opinion of umpires if this happened in your game.

The poster later "clarified" the runner is yelling at the 3rd base coach, not at the opposing team. Does that make a difference? Does the age make a difference?

Thoughts?

If the above play was my call, I have nothing.

However, to the item quoted here, the proper mechanic is to verbalize, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

dmc.

OK, any distraction or a fielder not thinking is INT. :eek: :p

No, I was just reading in the other discussion, not participating and some were arguing it could be called interference. While I don't think it qualifies as that, I think it is "bush" league... especially in the younger age group. My .02

Nothing other then DMC.

dmc?:confused:

"Dumb move, catcher"

ah, thanks.

You're welcome.

My thought exactly as I read the OP....bush league, but not illegal.

My thought exactly as I read the OP....bush league, but not illegal.

Some people give 2 cents, others give 2 posts. :) ;)

Andy has big fingers. :)

Paul

Text book interference.

"Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member, who impedes or confuses a defensive player while attempting to esecute a play. If judged so by the umpire, vocal interference may be called."

Similar to offense yelling "I got it" on a fly ball. Dead ball, out, runners return.

Problem is, the game is played on the field, not in a textbook.

No way on God's green earth would I call this interference.

I took it a step further for you! :cool:

Damn, are we back on that global warming issue again?

I think the only way you could call vocal interference is if the runner yelled something that only an umpire should yell and it causes the predicable reactions.

Like "FOUL BALL".

Even in a text book, or on a skinned infield. ;)

Depends on who says foul ball.

Just continuing the discussion...

R1 on 1st base... batter pops up F4. R1 yells "I got it". F4 muffs the catch.

Still no call?

Would have to see it

Back to the OP....I agree with it being bush league and I too have nothing here.
If some crap like that happened in baseball, that bush league player who yelled it would probably be found on their backside the next time they stepped in the batters box.

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?

Nah. That won't do it. Remember Ray Chapman?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your response, but doesn't that mean you might find it "interference"? BTW, I'm not talking about R1 going out of the way to do this, maybe she's just running a couple feet away from F4, sees her setting up for the catch and yells.

I'll let you know when I see it.:D

:p

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.

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

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.

Wasn't talking youth ball here.

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: 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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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??? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

Yes, she did and no interference.

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

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.

Skahtboi & Steve... how does the situation NOT fall into what you described? Skahtboi says something done by the offense to hinder a play. The R (offense) did something (yelled) to hinder (prevent the throw to 2b) the play.

Steve, the fielder (pitcher) was distracted.

A little story... the first travel game my DD (10) played in... she's nervous enough. We're up against a "dedicated" travel team (we're basically rec all stars). My DD is pitching. R at 3rd base takes a lead off, ball is returned to F1 and R claps AT my DD. Obviously she (R) was trying to get F1s attention. To try to calm down my daughter I simply yell "good for her, she knows how to clap.". DD smiled and went on. After the 1/2 inning, the runner's mother came over to me and criticized me for making fun of her daughter. :confused: When I asked her why her daughter clapped... "that's what she was taught to do."

Before it comes up, I don't remember if F1 was back in the circle or not, I wasn't worried about interference or LBR or anything like that. I just felt like telling you the story.

Sam...let me begin by pointing out that there was no play that occurred here. Without some type of play occurring, you can't have interference no matter what happens.

Next, verbal interference must be something that actively hinders the player from making the play, and must deviate from the normal course of the game. The chanting that goes on in the dugouts, coaches giving directives, players communicating with each other or with their coaches, even the little hand clapping thing you mention, and that we all see year after year in the 12U categories do not meet this qualification. Nor does the situation in the post we are discussing. These are normal, routine parts of the game.

That makes sense.

No problem with any of that.

Thanks

You're certainly welcome.

without trying to find out who said it, i wish to add to the point of the defensive player knowing the situation the thought that said player should be looking out the side of his/her eye and know that the runner on third is on the bag as she is about to field the ball (catcher has got to be aware of what runnner is doing on 3b just before fielding ball). if player does that and i think it is acceptable to expect this out of a player, then the yelling of going would be or should be ignored by the catcher. hence, no interfernce on this play.

food for thought.

Interference?
 

Unique verbalization, SC Ump...........