Retired runner proceeds straight to base -- do you have interference? (ASA)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where in the rules does it say the runner can't just go poof?

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

I really like this.....having had 32 hours of Physics (Quantum Physics/Orbital Bodies/Nuclear and some Electrical Engineering courses counted as Physics when I was in college. I hated Ficken Optics and Magnetism......my oldest Daughter ate that shit up...(that is why she is an engineer and I am not)...My brother was also a genius at that stuff. Ugh......all I have to say.......I was always a Chemistry Guy......

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

But, I like this one better.........d;-)

Flitwick would have been awesome.

[CecilOne]

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

Only among those that won't listen is this unclarified. And it should not be interpreted differently by different UIC's. Let me try...

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.
Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I think I might have heard those recently....

[sbatten]

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...

Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...



I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

This is a subject that is way overthought and people try to make something out of nothing.

A runner has every right to attempt to advance to a base. A runner should never be expected stop playing the game based on an assumption the call was out.

A runner should be expected to always maintain what would be the path to the base. Not altering a path is not an act of INT. ASSUMING an out and moving anywhere away from that path would be an act that if it affected the defense's ability to make a play on another runner should be ruled INT.

This train of thought is not new and has been in place since I've been umpiring softball (25 years).

Other than the point that the NCAA has callously opened season on runners the last couple of years, the only reason I can figure someone thought things changed was when ASA removed the "intent" notations to many of the INT rules.

When that occurred, there was no intention, pardon the pun, to change the manner in which the "acts" of interference were to be judged.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

[EsqUmp]

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Yes, and as a matter of fact, that was the same verbiage used in Colorado Springs in 2006 at the National Council Meeting when "intent" was removed from the INT rules.

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

That's not logic, that's just a misleading argument. What R1 is "supposed to be doing" is avoiding a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

That could be true. But on OBS, the runner just gets what should have been where on INT, the defense ALWAYS receives an assumed out, sometimes two.

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

No more so than awarding a base to a runner on an IP. One has nothing to do with the other except for being punitive, just like effecting the LBR for a runner stepping off a base or not deciding to return to the base quick enough when there is obviously no play developing.

Then there is the U3K. Why does the offense get another chance to reach the base safely simply after failing to put the ball into play and the catcher doesn't catch the ball? Neither did what they were supposed to do, so why isn't it just a wash?

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

Rich....please moderate this post......this is not a whose **** is longest just so you know. But, I thought since you have known me since about 1997, you can add some credibility to what I am fixin to say.

EsqUmp is still beating his dead horse.......Jeez...You have been proven wrong so many times.....why do you even still argue it....? You should go to your other NY expert and have him find that his BB Expert Carl Childress agrees with US. Even though it has no bearing on the SB game.

Arguing for interference when there is none is insane.

Dakota, Steve, Irish, Tom, NCAA, Manny, myself and many other hundreds of other umpires (who I wish I could all name) have butted heads for years arguing about the most trivial of things..........all the way back to the 90's......and we for the pretty much part kept it civil.

You show up in the last two years and proclaim yourself God's gift to umpires. And if we did not adhere to your view of umpiring....we were idiots. Time and time again we show you where you are wrong....and you act like a Teflon Don.....you allow the shit to roll right off of you.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Ooooooh.....you are an NCAA umpire.

Get in line. I can out umpire about 99% of y'all in ASA ball.....and probably most others in NCAA....even with a shitty hip.

PM me for my pedigree.....

Joel

[grounder]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

Rich....please moderate this post......this is not a whose **** is longest just so you know. But, I thought since you have known me since about 1997, you can add some credibility to what I am fixin to say.

EsqUmp is still beating his dead horse.......Jeez...You have been proven wrong so many times.....why do you even still argue it....? You should go to your other NY expert and have him find that his BB Expert Carl Childress agrees with US. Even though it has no bearing on the SB game.

Arguing for interference when there is none is insane.

Dakota, Steve, Irish, Tom, NCAA, Manny, myself and many other hundreds of other umpires (who I wish I could all name) have butted heads for years arguing about the most trivial of things..........all the way back to the 90's......and we for the pretty much part kept it civil.

You show up in the last two years and proclaim yourself God's gift to umpires. And if we did not adhere to your view of umpiring....we were idiots. Time and time again we show you where you are wrong....and you act like a Teflon Don.....you allow the shit to roll right off of you.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Ooooooh.....you are an NCAA umpire.

Get in line. I can out umpire about 99% of y'all in ASA ball.....and probably most others in NCAA....even with a shitty hip.

PM me for my pedigree.....

Joel

geez,,talk about a whose **** is bigger...lol..calm down and listen to other opinions once in a while. its healthy for officiating to hear some wisdom that may be outside the box although relavant. you dont have to agree with it but i would hope it would it would give you food for thought. and if no one else cares, im impressed with you being so accomplished, someday i hope to be a 1 percenter, my hip is ok but my shoulder bothers me once in a while..does that count?....lol...by the way, which post by esq ump did you interpret as uncivil?. i find his responses to be quite literate and gramatically civilized..take it easy and keep an open mind

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by grounder

geez,,talk about a whose **** is bigger...lol..calm down and listen to other opinions once in a while. its healthy for officiating to hear some wisdom that may be outside the box although relavant. you dont have to agree with it but i would hope it would it would give you food for thought. and if no one else cares, im impressed with you being so accomplished, someday i hope to be a 1 percenter, my hip is ok but my shoulder bothers me once in a while..does that count?....lol...by the way, which post by esq ump did you interpret as uncivil?. i find his responses to be quite literate and gramatically civilized..take it easy and keep an open mind

grounder.......

I was speaking to a specific individual.....not you.

Read his posts and decide who you think is the instigator.

We had a nice argumentative group here before a certain person got here......it then got personal.

I have been arguing with some of these guys for more than 15 years......one guy comes in and it all blows up......who do you blame.

Hope all is well with you.

Joel

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

Haven't you been embarrassed enough.