Interference Question
 

It is not interference if a runner intentionally hits a deflected batted ball with their elbow while running the bases.

Is this question T or F? Also, where exactly in the rule book does this talk about this situation. I know Rule 8, but which section?

The section on interference.

Re: Response
 

You're a real comedian! :rolleyes:

i think mbcrowder was too busy trying to be clever that he didnt realize that rule 8 doesnt have an 'interference' section. it does however have a 'runner is out' section..try that...rule 8-7......also check out RS#33 for more info

Re:
 

Thanks umpire12! I had found RS#33 after the wise guy made his comment and answered the question. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction though!

umpires are wise guys.

I didn't want to give the whole thing away. Telling him that his answer was in the "the runner is out" section answers the question.

I talked to Brad about this today, and I brought up the point that when veterans debase newbies, they leave, and never come back, thus costing him potential members to the paid site. Be an asset, not a debit.

I'm not in the Mafia.

i do understand your position but i think just pointing him in the right direction without evaluating his work ethic is more productive to new umpires than subtle hints. the rule book can be very daunting to even veteran umpires.lets show him what he needs to know then wean him out of this stage once he gets a grip on the layout of the book.

So...not just spoon-feeding a guy the answers and maybe forcing him to actually look in his rule book and figure something out, which will ultimately do more for his development as an umpire = debasing?

I agree, but disagree. Work ethic is the difference between an umpire and someone who umpires.

You can warn a child about being burned by fire or touching a hot iron or whatever, but only when the child suffers a burn of some type will s/he be able to fully appreciate and understand the warnings.

Do it right the first time and there is no "catching up" to do, which I find to be a difficult task for many.

The OP suggested a mentor. Would a mentor just offer an answer or page number? Or would a mentor ask a question or offer a comment which would lead to further research and hopeful discovery?

Mike offered the "interference" section. It was stated that there is none. Well, actually there is.....in the Index which breaks down the many situations and locations to find the appropriate rule.

Do we really need to break out that fishy chinese proverb?:D

You might also note that I previously provided the test answer references which should have taken him to the answers.

You should consider newbies as new born babes. They have to learn to crawl before they can walk. A little more spoon feeding at the beginning is appropriate. To your questions regarding a mentor, the answer is yes to all of them. A good mentor will adjust his approach as the umpire grows. At first, he should answer questions directly. Then as his understanding is strengthened, he should probably start asking questions that will get the umpire to think. Then he could direct the umpire to the appropriate rule.

My mentor answered my questions directly instead of telling me where in the book to look for the answers. My first year I asked a lot of questions. No so much my 2nd year and I didn't ask any my 3rd year. Learning to umpire is a process. I think we can show a little more patience to the newbies and give them more of a direct answer and explain the reasoning instead of just say read rule x.y.z. Then as they grow in understanding, we change our approach. Just like parenting! We answer questions directly when they are young and then as the get older we ask questions to stimulate their thinking.

As to your Chinese fish proverb! I'm assuming you mean "give a man a fish feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". Well, how are you going to teach him? Tell him to "Go read a book"? How about showing him and teaching him what bait to use for the fish he is after. What's the best time to fish and why. How to cast.

Good Lord! Maybe we should broaden this thread turned diatribe into a discussion of whether the OP is a visual learner, auditory learner, or tactile learner and make sure we customize the response to each new guy based on learning style. :rolleyes:

You are correct
 

Everybody learns the same way. There are no differences in learning styles. We should just teach one way. :rolleyes:

Just for future reference I am a visual learner with good autitory retention. Don't ask me to read to learn....I have read 4 books cover to cover...3 of them are rule books!!!

I see both sides of this pissing match that is going on here. But one old saying I saw at a place I used to work read:

"Tell me and I will forget
Show me and I will remember
Involve me and I will understand"

I understand the concept of being frustrated as a newbie. The book isn't the easiest to grasp sometimes...but just giving the answer falls into the first line of my quote, working through the rule book to teach a new umpire how to work out the answer on their own is how to get someone REALLY involved in umpiring and learning the rules the way they need to be known to become a good umpire. I do fully recongnize this has to be a balance between making the trail easy enough to follow that someone doesn't get frustrated and quit, but still hard enough that they learn from the experience. Let's all just try to meet in the middle a little bit

+1

And the other? Published by Marvel, perhaps? :D:D:D

nsc_wa, really, the best thing you can do for yourself is to get into the rule book. Daily. Twice a day. Pick a section and read it. Put it away. Later in the day, read a different section (or maybe the same one again).

Also, when you have a specific question, such as these from the test, go to the Index section of the 2012 ASA Rule Book. You may have to look in as many as 3 or 4 different areas before you find your answer, but you will probably find it. And, that gets you in the book.

Now, after having researched a particular question and being still unsure, come here and create a thread. State the situation, and provide the stance you have come to based on the Rule Book. Then, the rest of the forum can help you out.

I honestly don't think I was abusive, rude, or out of line with this guy. I see it called a pissing match above - it never was (from my side at least). There were seven or eight posts from the same guy, all asking test questions. I, for one, am not going to just answer someone's test questions - for the reasons I stated.

My honest goal here (on multiple threads) was to lead him to the answer(s). I don't believe I'm at fault for him getting belligerent over that. Perhaps others have expressed that viewpoint more eloquently than I - but if poster thought I was out of line in the manner that I tried to help, I have no problem not helping, especially after being asked specifically by him not to help anymore.

Mike's chinese fishing proverb completely applies here, as does my statement that if we answer 1 question, he learns 1 thing - but if he reads the relevant section of the book, he learns 100. If I can help a new guy learn 100 things to make him a better umpire, I'm more than willing. I don't think anyone should waste their time teaching just one though.

Also...
 

Get the Case Book. It will help your understanding. It will clarify what the rule book is trying to say. It comes on a CD and you can get it from the ASA web site.

I don't totally disagree
 

However, there are times when the direct approach is best. I agree with your end result of getting him to think for himself and to get into the book.
But to tell someone new to read the book is not the approach I would take at the beginning. Think about how you learned math or any other subject that was new to you. The teacher didn't come in and say read the book and then ask questions. She taught you the fundamentals and then stepped you through examples. I'm a software engineer. I'm not going to tell you to read a book on Embedded Development your first day of software engineering.

NO, I am very offended by that insinuation. It was a book by Bill Engvall my wife bought me!! :D True story....Here's your sign! :p

He is not a baby and I'm not going to treat him or anyone else like they are a baby. If that is what they want, I would suggest a nursery.

He was given the answers and references.

Whether you want to admit it or not, in today's world, NO ONE thinks it is important to actually learn this stuff. It is unbelieveable how many people take the instruction as if it were a suggestion, not direction.

Like it or not, if you want someone to excel, they have to want and work to learn, force feeding doesn't help. This is how you end up with "veteran" umpires ruling or being talked into ruling the hands as part of the bat; an IF is a dead ball; its one base from the infield, two from the outfield, etc. This often happens simply because that umpire never had to make such a decision and was never "given" the exact ruling.

Don't like chinese proverbs? How about Algernon Sydney?

Hey, you said you were a visual learner... can't get much more visual than graphic fiction! ;)

No, not really
 

Its not the force feeding that makes veteran umpires rule such things. Its being feed the wrong answers. I doubt very seriously if you forced fed anyone regarding those rules above, that they would get them wrong. You would give them the correct answers.

I like that proverb and have used it a great deal. I just think that at times the direct approach is best instead of "Go read a book". Whether you like it or not, different teaching styles exist because we all learn differently. One size does not fit all.

I can tell you I spend a load of time every year offering everything I can to any umpire or prospect who is willing to sit and listen. And it is unbelieveable how many couldn't come up with the correct ruling if their life depended on it. We talk about, we go through the rule with the book open and then offer examples. That is my idea of "force feeding". However, none of it makes a difference if the person isn't willing to actually get into the book and voluntarily absorb the information.

I have found that more than less will choose to accept the easy path and not follow up on their own.

No argument, but that was not the case here. The newb was given the answers and then told where to find them.

What happens when you make a ruling and there seems to be a viable question on the field that makes you think twice about it? Do you check the book after the game, or do you just assume you must have been right and there is no need to check?

I guarantee if it is the former, you will get this ruling right every time the rest of your career, even if you kicked it that one time on the field.

If the latter, you may feel solid, but if you kicked it this time, you are doomed to repeat that failure.

Interesting that ther is no late/current reponse from our original poster - nsc_wa - if I remember correctly.
From folks I know, I can tell you Mike is not a friendly teacher - but he is a very good teacher. He is thorough.
From those who whine that he and others are too harsh, they have not hear me ask what do they rule book and manual say? My frequent suggestion is to RTFM - translation is - Read The F-ing Manual.
After one has does that - RTFM - I will gladly answer/address any question that remains.

"No argument, but that was not the case here. The newb was given the answers and then told where to find them"

actually, no...he was given the wrong answer. he asked which section of rule 8 would satisy his interference question. he was told 'the interference section'. we all know there is no 'interference' section in rule 8. how frustrating it must be to be told by a verteran umpire that the answer could be found in the ' interference' section of rule 8 only to find there is no such section. also i , like nsc wa and others found the initial response to be more of an attempt to give his cronies a giggle more than to actually to help and support him. it was embarrassing to read it . yes, debasing is a good word for it. its an all too common occurance on this site

No, I'm right.

No you're not, I'm right.

No, you're wrong, I'm right.

http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif

Perhaps one of our members took the discussion with nsc_wa offline so he could ask questions without feeling embarrassed. Or maybe he took Sean's advice and found someone local to help.

Just a thought.

Mikey thinks he is teflon. Talk to him in the same manner he talks to others, and his defense mechanism meter goes off the charts. I've seen him, and others go off on a new poster for asking questions on the baseball forum. They then label such poster a troll. The baseball forum became a joke to me because bob jenkins allowed it to become one.

You and mbcrowder have had an ongoing, seemingly personal, dispute on the baseball board. Please keep it there.

Maybe I was thinking of the 6 other test questions asked. But in that case, ncs_wa offered and answer and that was addresses. And as I pointed out, there is an interference that references rule 8. Yeah, it's not in rule 8, but the book is more than a rule number.

Mike's response was a teaching point. Maybe some believe the tests should just be published with the answers and assume the participants will actually take the time to look them up. I've been doing this too long to know that is not happening with the majority of the umpires, including veterans.

Personally, I think it is a damn shame that this umpire isn't or wasn't being given the time of day by his own association, assuming his account is accurate and there is no reason to believe it is not. I'll give him credit for trying to find the answers, but is this really the place it should be?

I remember when we used to have folks on McGriffs that tried to poach test results simply because some were too lazy to do the work. Is that the guy/gal you want as a partner in a game?

If nsc_wa keeps it up, there shouldn't be a question as to being a knowledgeable umpire, but there is a need to learn how to do it, not just get the right answers on a test.

Yes!
 

Absolutely it should be! Without a doubt! I have been umpiring for 9 years now. I know there are those who have more experience then I. I just mentioned that to indicate I'm no rookie. However, 9 years ago I joined this site and I'm glad I did. I learned a lot on this site. I used it more heavily than I do now. If he can't come here to learn where should he go? Yes, his association should be teaching him, but this is a secondary learning tool! In some cases it is easier to come here and post a question than it is to call someone in the umpires association. You get more for your trouble. You can get multiple responses with just one question. There's great dialogue. Sure at times it digresses into a pissing match, unfortunately. But for the most part it is good debate.

One thing we veterans need to remember is how it was when we first started. Some veterans here can be a little too dismissive of the rookies in my opinion.

I didn't say it couldn't be helpful. For that matter, it is priceless to some. However, this or any other discussion board should not be considered a primary resource to reference.

Do you accept an argument from a coach when he tells you he knows the rule because he checked at Heybucket.com?

Would you expect a clinician to accept this or any other board when addressing a rule or interpretation at a clinic or on the field?

One of the quickest ways for an umpire to kill his/her rules knowledge credibility with a UIC is to start the explanation of a call with, "Well, at home....." or "On the game on TV the other night..." Had a guy reference what was done "at home" in OKC one time, and I think they heard the UIC in the guy's home state (CA).

You talk about how valuable this is and how much you learned here, yet when people are trying to prod a newbie into researching and discovering the rules, you chastise them. Did everyone just give you test answers when you first joined? I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.

Look, this and other boards can be a great source of information. Between here, McGriffs and other umpiring sites, we've had some great discussions, arguments and even discoveries that led to rule changes and interpretations. However, these boards are not a substitute for a school, clinic, seminar or study session. One may learn some of the mechanics, some of the rules and interpretations, but someone isn't going to become an umpire from coming to websites to learn.

Perhaps the rookie appears to be arguing - not appropriate.
Perhaps the rookie appears to looking for an answer that would best be understood by finding it in the rule book.

Once I decided to get a bit more serious about umpiring, I kept a log or umpire diary. For "strange" situations, I'd note what my ruling had been, I'd note what the rule book said - after I'd looked it up - and I'd note what a few clinicians or more skilled umpires said. It's a great way to ensure the same mistake is not made twice. Do your homework first, then ask for clarification.

+1 on the troll.

But we can certainly recommend good beer......:D