Don't like the call

[ChampaignBlue]

I think we can all agree that the rule should be rewritten to remove contradictions and conflicts. My problem with automatically calling an out for INT while I have CO is that the defense gets all the breaks if INT occurs AFTER the CO.
Let's take this play into consideration. Bases loaded, 2 out,full count, runners take off with the pitch and there's CO but the ball clips R3 on the heal. Without the INT we'd probably still have bases loaded with a run in. With the enforcement of INT 1st we have a new inning with no run scored despite the fact that the CO could have been the difference between the ball hitting R3 or not. To me it seems that the defense is being rewarded for breaking a rule.
Realistically the only time we'd have INT on CO is an infielder fielding a batted ball or throwing for a quick out because anything hit to the outfield is likely to advance the runners and take off the CO. The reason that we have INT is so that the Offense can't do something to prevent the defense from getting an out or if intentional, 2 outs. When there is CO we say that the defense only gets an out if the offense chooses to let them have an out but it's being suggested that if the offense commits INT, no matter how it occurs, the same runner that we would have been protecting is now going to be called out even though the INT may have been initiated by the CO. I maintain that the original call of dead ball, announce the out(s) then give the coach the choice play or CO is fair because if CO is chosen offense gets what offense would have gotten automatically, if play is chosen offense only gets what they got before INT, no advantage gained. JMHO JIm

[Edited by ChampaignBlue on Feb 10th, 2003 at 12:48 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ChampaignBlue
I think we can all agree that the rule should be rewritten to remove contradictions and conflicts. My problem with automatically calling an out for INT while I have CO is that the defense gets all the breaks if INT occurs AFTER the CO.
Let's take this play into consideration. Bases loaded, 2 out,full count, runners take off with the pitch and there's CO but the ball clips R3 on the heal. Without the INT we'd probably still have bases loaded with a run in. With the enforcement of INT 1st we have a new inning with no run scored despite the fact that the CO could have been the difference between the ball hitting R3 or not. To me it seems that the defense is being rewarded for breaking a rule.
Realistically the only time we'd have INT on CO is an infielder fielding a batted ball or throwing for a quick out because anything hit to the outfield is likely to advance the runners and take off the CO. The reason that we have INT is so that the Offense can't do something to prevent the defense from getting an out or if intentional, 2 outs. When there is CO we say that the defense only gets an out if the offense chooses to let them have an out but it's being suggested that if the offense commits INT, no matter how it occurs, the same runner that we would have been protecting is now going to be called out even though the INT may have been initiated by the CO. I maintain that the original call of dead ball, announce the out(s) then give the coach the choice play or CO is fair because if CO is chosen offense gets what offense would have gotten automatically, if play is chosen offense only gets what they got before INT, no advantage gained. JMHO JIm

[Edited by ChampaignBlue on Feb 10th, 2003 at 12:48 PM]

Sorry, but I totally disagree with the reasoning above. I don't think anything needs to be rewritten.

Apparently, you are under the misconception that obstruction protects everyone on the field, it does not. ONLY the offensive player who was obstructed is protected. All others remain in jeopardy and are subject to all rules involving them.

There is NOTHING fair about letting the offense run roughshod over the rules simply because there was CO.

[kellerumps]

I have not got an "Official" Ruling yet....but from my 2 NCAA assigners and 1 National Committee Member it is looking like the INT is overlooked and we have runners on 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Further, every college umpire I have talked to has said the same thing.

Still waiting on an Offical Ruling but the reasoning goes that the Catcher put the Offense at a disadvantage by Obstructing. I gotta agree.

[scottk_61]

I was able to sit in on the conversation regarding the original play while in Oklahoma City this past weekend with some of the members of the casebook committee.
I heard some pretty spirited discussion and a good time was had by all.
In the end, the interference was called from the last discussion I was privelege to.........but that doesn't mean that they had decided that this was the correct call at that time.
I understand that this will be discussed at the National School in Atlanta on the 22nd and 23rd of this month, by Henry Pollard and the other clinicians.

I am looking forward to the discussion and will let you know what is decided.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by scottk_61
I was able to sit in on the conversation regarding the original play while in Oklahoma City this past weekend with some of the members of the casebook committee.
I heard some pretty spirited discussion and a good time was had by all.
In the end, the interference was called from the last discussion I was privelege to.........but that doesn't mean that they had decided that this was the correct call at that time.
I understand that this will be discussed at the National School in Atlanta on the 22nd and 23rd of this month, by Henry Pollard and the other clinicians.

I am looking forward to the discussion and will let you know what is decided.

Scott,

It was nice meeting you. Speaking of spirited discussion, how about the discussion on the floor about the new SP mechanic. My partner and I was talking to Bernie right afterwards and he was somewhat concerned over how things went down. When asked about the "three knockdown rule", he told me it was waived for that discussion. Then Mike DeLeo came over and started laughing and Bernie appeared, let's say, a bit less than a happy camper.

Nonetheless, I have always believed the experience of OKC is just unbelieveable. I had two of my deputies with me and they were just taken back by the cammeraderie and info floating about.

[scottk_61]

Bernie needed more than one standing 8 count on that deal......
We almost had a TKO and would have had Henry not come forward.
Down here, we have had a few people switch to the new mechaninc to see how they feel about it and in order to get it seen.
But for the rest of teh association, they are going to wait until there is a written version of it presented (per our UIC).
There is resistance but also ready acceptance. As I feared, the lazy umpire has become even more lazy but there is hope that it will change.

It was good to meet you in OKC and I had a great time there even with the shootout from the floor.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by scottk_61

Down here, we have had a few people switch to the new mechaninc to see how they feel about it and in order to get it seen.
But for the rest of teh association, they are going to wait until there is a written version of it presented (per our UIC).
There is resistance but also ready acceptance. As I feared, the lazy umpire has become even more lazy but there is hope that it will change.

I'm going to institute the mechanic into our Championship Play and encourage the locals to put it in place ON AN EXPERIMENTAL basis.

I will be more than happy to collect feedback from this season and pass it on to Henry.

[Skahtboi]

I have been away from this site for a week now, and look at what ya'll have done to this thread!!!



Scott

[ronald]

I have not heard anything from Merle Butler; however, last night I attend GWASA clinic and talked to the umpire who made the original call (UIC FOR GWASA). I got a minor detail wrong. Only runner on 2nd base.

He and his patner ruled originally interference over the obstruction and later thought they had gotten it wrong but the regional UIC Bob Samoy ? told them that they had gotten it correct.

It was discussed at the Oklahoma meeting and he reports that they came away with the following: Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction. They did bring up some other situations that made for a lively discussion and will work on those in the casebook committee.

This area will revisit this case again this Sunday, I am told, at the Metro Washington DC Clinic.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
I have not heard anything from Merle Butler; however, last night I attend GWASA clinic and talked to the umpire who made the original call (UIC FOR GWASA). I got a minor detail wrong. Only runner on 2nd base.

He and his patner ruled originally interference over the obstruction and later thought they had gotten it wrong but the regional UIC Bob Samoy ? told them that they had gotten it correct.

It was discussed at the Oklahoma meeting and he reports that they came away with the following: Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction. They did bring up some other situations that made for a lively discussion and will work on those in the casebook committee.

This area will revisit this case again this Sunday, I am told, at the Metro Washington DC Clinic.

That means the call was made by either Ron Galemore (sp), Judy Cole, (fp) or Joey DeFranco (jo), all UICs in this area and good umpires. Being from the same region, I spent half my time with these folks in OKC and the subject never came up.

BTW, the RUIC is Bob Savoie, my contact with the Nat. Staff.

[ronald]

Mike,

I did not really want to give the guy's name but it was Chick Montrose. The play occured in girl's fastpitch. He's listed as the UIC for GWASA and a Deputy UIC with DCASA.

I have worked with Judy out of Northern Virginia but not the others. She was the first person to ever evaluate me correcting some deficiencies and teaching me to use the slot and track the ball with the nose. She's really good and steps up for the umpires. She pushed for and got the powers to be to give umpires who had never worked high school playoffs the chance last year. Of course, those that did so earned the privilege. Since you are both ISF qualified, I imagine you have worked together.

Thanks for the spelling on Bob's name.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
Mike,

I did not really want to give the guy's name but it was Chick Montrose. The play occured in girl's fastpitch. He's listed as the UIC for GWASA and a Deputy UIC with DCASA.

I have worked with Judy out of Northern Virginia but not the others. She was the first person to ever evaluate me correcting some deficiencies and teaching me to use the slot and track the ball with the nose. She's really good and steps up for the umpires. She pushed for and got the powers to be to give umpires who had never worked high school playoffs the chance last year. Of course, those that did so earned the privilege. Since you are both ISF qualified, I imagine you have worked together.

Thanks for the spelling on Bob's name.

Yes, I know Chick. He, too, was in OKC with us. Great guy and fantastic instructor. I've only worked with Ron Galemore, locally in DE (Ron and Jack Mowatt came up to work some games) and at the Men's Interservice Championships last year. I know Judy from different meetings and clinics, Regional and National. And, obviously, Bob Savoie is my boss.

I guess the designation of UIC is semantical. In Delaware, the label of UIC and DUIC are reserved for the State/Metro level. The instructors and persons responsible for interpretations at the local association level are referred to as Rules Interpreters. However, many of those folks are usually very capable of doing the job of a UIC/DUIC if necessary.

Not to be picky, Judy and I are both certified, but her's is in FP while mine is SP.

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

I know Judy and I also had Jack Mowatt along with Bob at a National here in Marietta, Ga. a few years back. Jack gave me a great umpire pin that many, many girls have tried to trade with me.
Of course, to my great joy, I've had Bob as UIC at 4 of the Nationals I've called! 3 FP, 1 SP. I hope we get this question resolved; but I would call the inference 1st.
Hasn't this been a great thread?

Here's the link to my web site that I'd like all of y'all to visit when you have the time. Please sign the guest book!

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/communit...upid=89183&ck=

Thanks! :>)