Contact for Interference

[whiskers_ump]

Just came in from working an ASA tournament where the TD sent printed rules
changes to all teams. There were two. Must have contact to make an
interference call and On-deck batters must be behind the batter,
and not necessarily in their on-deck circle. i.e. Team batting from the
1st base dugout would have their on-deck batters in the circle located by
3rd for right handed batters, and in the circle nearest their dugout out
when left-handed batter was up.

These two changes were exceptions to utilizing ASA Rules. Naturally the "contact
for interference, in MHO, was dumb, and hardest to rule on. We had runners
dashing in front, waving arms in front of and just about everything possible
to hinder, impede, and confuse the defensive players. I called one where the
runner ran in front of SS stopped and then just before ball could hit her,
continued on her way. This fit all categories of interference. Offensive
coach appealled to TD & UIC, call was changed. {rule misinterpretation}. At
this point I informed both coaches, the next act of this nature would result in
a USC under Rule 10 Sec 9 A. and that I would eject both player and coach. I had
no more problems.

I was told the reason that the rule was put in effect, was because that all umpires
interpret interference differently, so they added the "must be contact"
phrase to insure it was called the same by all umpires. One coach even wanted
to argue that when I called interference on his runner for running inside the
line and interferred with F3's catch of the ball {ball hit her} that there was
no contact. "Coach, ball hit runner, C O N T A C T"

Anyone else every call a tournament where this type of rule was installed.
In my opinion, this type of rule changes the whole game. How would some of you
feel having to call in a tournament with this change.

glen

[ntxblue]

Glen,

I never have had to deal with this type of rule change before. It would be the LAST time I ever called for them. Are the UIC and the TD going to accept the liability for any injuries resulting from a "non-contact" "non-interference"?

Secondary issue - -- Why do TD's think that they have to "improve" on the rules? It seems to only confuse the coaches and parents when they go to the next tournament that doesn't "improve" on the rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Just came in from working an ASA tournament where the TD sent printed rules
changes to all teams. There were two. Must have contact to make an
interference call and On-deck batters must be behind the batter,
and not necessarily in their on-deck circle. i.e. Team batting from the
1st base dugout would have their on-deck batters in the circle located by
3rd for right handed batters, and in the circle nearest their dugout out
when left-handed batter was up.

These two changes were exceptions to utilizing ASA Rules. Naturally the "contact
for interference, in MHO, was dumb, and hardest to rule on. We had runners
dashing in front, waving arms in front of and just about everything possible
to hinder, impede, and confuse the defensive players. I called one where the
runner ran in front of SS stopped and then just before ball could hit her,
continued on her way. This fit all categories of interference. Offensive
coach appealled to TD & UIC, call was changed. {rule misinterpretation}. At
this point I informed both coaches, the next act of this nature would result in
a USC under Rule 10 Sec 9 A. and that I would eject both player and coach. I had
no more problems.

I was told the reason that the rule was put in effect, was because that all umpires
interpret interference differently, so they added the "must be contact"
phrase to insure it was called the same by all umpires. One coach even wanted
to argue that when I called interference on his runner for running inside the
line and interferred with F3's catch of the ball {ball hit her} that there was
no contact. "Coach, ball hit runner, C O N T A C T"

Anyone else every call a tournament where this type of rule was installed.
In my opinion, this type of rule changes the whole game. How would some of you
feel having to call in a tournament with this change.

glen

As a UIC, I would not accept any changes made by the TD without having been consulted. As an umpire, I wouldn't have a problem finding someplace else to work that day or be home cutting the lawn.

[blue]

With a rule change like that, (contact required for interference), I would refuse to ump. We go to clinics, study our manuals, and observe umps ant many games. We know what intereferene is, and we know how and when to call it. With that being said, two different umps may see the same play two different ways. That's part of the game.
If they want to change the interference rules to require contact, they would not need certified umps. They could use any parent in the stands since contact would be visible to all, and require no judgement.

[refjef40]

Thats horrible the only rule changes acceptable in a tournament is time restraints,infield warm-up restrictions and overtime rules.Anything that effects the game I say sorry find someone else.Our job is hard enough without changing basic rules.

[kellerumps]

Gotta Agree with Mike on this one. I(We) go home and find something else to do.

Begin SoapBox
This touches on a pet-peeve of mine. I really have a problem working for people that take umpires for granted. They change rules(Like above), treat us like an after thought, don't pay us after services have been rendered and then complain when people don't want to work for them.
End SoapBox

Sorry all, I just had a rough series to end my college season and am a little testy right now.

See you all in 4 weeks when our summer season begins.

[blcump]

A prime example of why tournament directors are called tournament directors and why umpires are called umpires !!!

Can you say "Clueless?"

[whiskers_ump]

Ok, I agree, I probably should not have gotten involved with the tournament.
But I had committed several weeks earlier, and was not aware that a "Must
have contact for interference" Rule would be utilized. If I accept a slot for
a tournament, I show, even if I have to turn down a better one later.

However, we wrapped it up and actually had two legit interference calls.

glen

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Ok, I agree, I probably should not have gotten involved with the tournament.
But I had committed several weeks earlier, and was not aware that a "Must
have contact for interference" Rule would be utilized. If I accept a slot for
a tournament, I show, even if I have to turn down a better one later.

However, we wrapped it up and actually had two legit interference calls.

glen

No big deal. Now you will just be aware of this the next time and ask in advance.

[ChampaignBlue]

I'd probably still work the games since I said I would, unlike the pros and college coaches I still believe in honoring contracts. I would however point out some of the problems that such a rule is going to cause and see if I couldn't get rid of it from the beginning.

Another rule that the TD can change without my ire would be to disallow steel.

[Andy]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump

I was told the reason that the rule was put in effect, was because that all umpires
interpret interference differently, so they added the "must be contact"
phrase to insure it was called the same by all umpires.
glen

What's next?

Since all umpires interpret the strike zone differently, there will be no called strikes at this tournament. Only pitches that are swung at and missed or foul balls will be counted as strikes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Andy

What's next?

Since all umpires interpret the strike zone differently, there will be no called strikes at this tournament. Only pitches that are swung at and missed or foul balls will be counted as strikes.

I prefer the self-pitch games. The team at bat supplies the pitcher. The batter has two pitches to put into fair play or they are out. Defense positions a "pitcher" wherever they please and if the actual pitcher deflects or catches a batted ball, the BR is out.

My type of game

[bluezebra]

TDs like this are morons. I would never work a tournament where such stupid violations of the rule book are mandated. As an assignor, I would refuse to assign umpires with these restrictions.

When you deviate from the rule book of the organization, you're leaving yourself liable for injuries occurred.

Bob