From another board

[shagpal]

its in the video.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How do you know what he "looked" like?

What would you expect him to do, run out in the field waving his arms, screaming "no, no, no, live ball"?

Don't see either umpire killing the play, just the BU making a ruling on a play that, if you want to prioritize, wasn't his to make.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

{Cringe}

Be careful here. A runner (or fielder, for that matter) can easily interfere (or obstruct) by "doing what she is supposed to".
There are many examples, such as when a runner going straight to her next base collides with a fielder fielding the ball,

The fielder is doing what she is SUPPOSED to do the runner is not. (The Runner is supposed to avoid the contact on this play if they do not the they are not doing what they are SUPPOSED to do they are INTERFERING.)

or when a fielder moves into the path of the runner while trying to catch an off-line throw.

The fielder is doing what they are supposed to do unless this act hinders the runner. ( If the throw gets their first nothing is wrong. The fielder must avoid hindering the runner with out the ball or they are guilty of OBSTRUCTION).

I would recommend not to use that line when justifying a call with a coach.

IF this play was not called and a coach came out to question interference on the play, my response to a coach would be in my judgment is no interference as the Batter-Runner did what she is SUPPOSED TO BY BOOK RULE.

Come on Manny get real we do not need to answer every Question here like talking to a coach unless asked how should we answer the coach!!!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

IF this play was not called and a coach came out to question interference on the play, my response to a coach would be in my judgment is no interference as the Batter-Runner did what she is SUPPOSED TO BY BOOK RULE.

Come on Manny get real we do not need to answer every Question here like talking to a coach unless asked how should we answer the coach!!!

Ugh. I hope you're never my umpire. I'd insist that you show me where the "book rule" (your words) defines what the batter-runner is "supposed to" do. I'd also insist that you look up the definition of batter-runner, as this player is not one at that point.

"Coach, she was doing what she's supposed to be doing" is NEVER the right answer. And it is never an explanation (even to other umpires) of why a particular call is correct.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ugh. I hope you're never my umpire. I'd insist that you show me where the "book rule" (your words) defines what the batter-runner is "supposed to" do. I'd also insist that you look up the definition of batter-runner, as this player is not one at that point.

"Coach, she was doing what she's supposed to be doing" is NEVER the right answer. And it is never an explanation (even to other umpires) of why a particular call is correct.

Mike You are correct at the time of the throw she is a retired runner.

Rule 8-7-p
Interference by a retired runner.

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.

Rule Supplement 33.
INTERFERENCE.

Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes,
hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual
distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution
of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball
anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered.

The act of a retired runner slowing and stopping in foul territory where they belong cannot be interference so by book rule no Interference.

[MD Longhorn]

IB - I'm good with all of your last post. And I agree with you that it's not interference.

My beef was with the crutch - "She was just doing what she was supposed to do". As an umpire, I cringe when a coach says that - it tells me he/she doesn't have any idea what the book says - it just doesn't "FEEL" right to them. When an umpire says it? Cringe is not nearly strong enough.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

IB - I'm good with all of your last post. And I agree with you that it's not interference.

My beef was with the crutch - "She was just doing what she was supposed to do". As an umpire, I cringe when a coach says that - it tells me he/she doesn't have any idea what the book says - it just doesn't "FEEL" right to them. When an umpire says it? Cringe is not nearly strong enough.

I hear you on that but on here I guess I dumb things down.
I have not had a problem on the field with an explanation or interpretation since my first year umpiring.

All of my different units insist we learn how to speak the rules to coaches. so I guess that is how I talk on here from her out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

I hear you on that but on here I guess I dumb things down. ...

I think we've just been insulted!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

its in the video.

You cannot even see half of his face once the catch is made and much less afterward. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, watching the play.

If I had to guess, I would say he is waiting for what never came, the partner looking for him if someone questioned the call.

He may have been dumbfounded, but unless you were the BU, you don't know

[shagpal]

his face isn't even a factor. he drew all attention to himself by freezing in that WTF pose while everyone else went about their business.

even the batter said some words as she approached, and he never turned to look, but he appeared to give a shrug. he was "gawking" at the play and lingering far too long after not to draw attention. its all in body language and some lack of. he telegraphed that he expected something coming such as a questioning of the call.

if he wanted to be in a better spot and available to help, how about he take his pad out and move into foul area near the running lane and wait while pretending to be jotting instead of starring down that image of a play long finished, or at least sweep the plate as he normally would have done.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You cannot even see half of his face once the catch is made and much less afterward. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, watching the play.

If I had to guess, I would say he is waiting for what never came, the partner looking for him if someone questioned the call.

He may have been dumbfounded, but unless you were the BU, you don't know

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

his face isn't even a factor. he drew all attention to himself by freezing in that WTF pose while everyone else went about their business.

even the batter said some words as she approached, and he never turned to look, but he appeared to give a shrug. he was "gawking" at the play and lingering far too long after not to draw attention. its all in body language and some lack of. he telegraphed that he expected something coming such as a questioning of the call.

if he wanted to be in a better spot and available to help, how about he take his pad out and move into foul area near the running lane and wait while pretending to be jotting instead of starring down that image of a play long finished, or at least sweep the plate as he normally would have done.

Why should he "pretend" anything? And why would he respond to anything anyone has to say about a call that he didn't make?

You've some imagination, but you might want to leave that in your equipment bag.

[IRISHMAFIA]

There is nothing wrong speaking along the lines of "the player was doing what the player is supposed to do". No one is stating that should be the basis of one's ruling, but certainly should be taken into consideration when determining whether the actions caused interference. As previously noted, part of what the player "is supposed to do" is avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play when dictated by the rules.

Often the difference between interference and a no call is the changing of the circumstances which is where "doing what s/he is supposed to be doing" is a consideration.

Since day one of the change in the rules concerning INT, the simple example that has been offered involves a runner advancing toward 2B on a ground ball to an infielder. The scenarios involved that player being retired on a force @ 2B and getting hit with the relay to 1B. Working with the assumption that the defense had a valid opportunity to put out the BR @ 1B.

If the runner was simply proceeding to 2B when being hit WITHOUT any additional antics, it is nothing, but a poor selection of where to throw the ball by the defender.

If the runner fell to the ground prior to the defender making the relay throw and then rises to his/her feet and gets hit with the throw, now you have INT.

The difference is that the circumstances changed in the second event. In the first, the defender can see the retired runner and should select a, and I hate using this term, throwing lane that would not involve any action by the retired runner. In the latter situation, the defender sees a clear path to throw the ball, but the retired runner, doing what s/he is supposed to do (avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play), should have stayed down. By moving into what was a clear path to throw the ball is an act of interference. That act changed the circumstances of the play in front of the teams and umpire.

It would be no different than a retired runner moving out of the already determined base path and into a throwing lane the fielder has chosen to make his/her throw to 1B.

A couple of you are probably tired of hearing this, but every year, one or two of this type of thread pops up which demonstrates the concern I voiced when ASA chose to change their wording on the INT rules. People avoided me in Colorado Springs because they knew my agenda that year and with the exception of a couple of NUS members who agreed with my concern, no one wanted to buck the movement.

However, every year you have calls like this one where an umpire took it upon himself to interpret the rule in a manner it was not intended to be interpreted. Of course, with the NCAA's recent demonstrations that target practice is an acceptable act by the defense to get a free out, I can see how people may believe it is true in all games even though clinical evidence may indicate otherwise.

[shagpal]

if he can't control his gawking, pretending to perform his duties that he should be performing anyways is one way to detract attention. I think everyone picked up on this dumfounded gawking, even someone as simple as you.

its about surviving in a modern age of instant internet media.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why should he "pretend" anything? And why would he respond to anything anyone has to say about a call that he didn't make?

You've some imagination, but you might want to leave that in your equipment bag.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

if he can't control his gawking, pretending to perform his duties that he should be performing anyways is one way to detract attention. I think everyone picked up on this dumfounded gawking, even someone as simple as you.

I'm not stupid enough or an umpire that weak that needs to make up things to justify nonsense.

In my trained observation, the umpire was doing what he was supposed to be doing, watching the play. Was he dumbfounded? I know that I would probably be dumbfounded if I witnessed something like that. Maybe he was, but unless you were on the field with him, you don't know that. Were you on the field with him?

[shagpal]

are you stupid enuff?

nothing to make up. he was gawking. not a terrible thing, but not a good thing. but, you don't know because you were trained.

would it help him to make something up? you said he looked dumbfounded. but you aren't sure now because your not trained.

at least your training says he's in the right spot, thats was a tough one to spot, so we can now all agree.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm not stupid enough or an umpire that weak that needs to make up things to justify nonsense.

In my trained observation, the umpire was doing what he was supposed to be doing, watching the play. Was he dumbfounded? I know that I would probably be dumbfounded if I witnessed something like that. Maybe he was, but unless you were on the field with him, you don't know that. Were you on the field with him?