From another board
 

Take a look at this thread and video and tell us what you think:

how would you ruled this? - Page 2

Here is a direct link to the Video http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo...&sid=170225371

The Batter of course is out.
The question then becomes did a retired player interfere with the play?

I am going to say no she did not as she was doing what she is supposed to do (run to 1st) when you hit the ball. She looks back saw she was out and stopped running. She is clearly in foul territory and did not intentionally interfere.

The PU looks kind of dumb founded. Perhaps he did not agree with BU call. I would certainly want to know how that could be BU call when it happened right in front of PU. IMHO there is no way the retired runner committed interference in this case.

Post this when people are paying attention and grab the popcorn.....;)

Speaking ASA

This is a lousy call. The retired BR did not commit an act of interference.
There really isn't anything to debate, it was an umpire either being talked into a call or doesn't know the rule.

not just dumbfounded, but just plain dumb.

he might was well have held up a sign inviting everyone and wrote on his forehead that the crew is divided.

he can has plenty of opportunity to discuss in postgame with his partner.

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.

Interference on this play is not just a bad call but possibly even a rules mistake on the part of BU. I think, as PU, this warrants at least a bit of discussion to make sure it's horribly bad judgement (and thus unfixable) rather than a rules misunderstanding on his part (and thus necessarily fixable).

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

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

its in the video.

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.)

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).

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.

you would instigate a discussion on the field?

Instigate?

I don't think that word means what you think it does. :)

Initiate? Depending on partner, yes. If there's any likelihood partner's decision is a rules error, we have an obligation to see it fixed. If I don't know partner, or if partner is someone I know to be new, I'm absolutely INITIATING ( :) ) a conversation with him to ask him if his decision is correct by rule. This (potentially at least) is equivalent to partner ruling someone out on IFF with 2 outs. We fix rule errors if we know a rule error has been made. We're required to.

OTOH, if this is a partner that I know to be knowledgable on the rules, I let it lie and ask him afterward why he made the ruling he made (and why he was fishing in my pond). Until then (unless asked by partner), I assume he saw something from his angle that I did not from mine that made him make this call.

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.

well, instigate, initiate, whatever. it certainly deserves postgame, and I would. but I think you are out of your mind to ponder anything during a game.

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.

What do you do when your partner makes what is obviously an incorrect call by rule? (Not judgement ... rule). If your partner errs on an inappropriate IFF call ... or awards bases on a ball out of play based on TOP instead of TOT, etc --- do you do anything?

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.:)

this is a judgement call. actually, its not even his call, but nonetheless his call not for you to try to change. if he asks for help, he has to change it on his own self initated.

You've changed the argument.

I find it hard to believe you can be 100% sure this error (and there's no question there's a mistake here) is a judgement call. ESPECIALLY if this is a newer official. In fact, I suspect the BU who made this call - the actual one in the video - does not understand the rule correctly. Assuming an umpire with reasonable judgement skills, I find it MORE likely that he called this out because he misunderstands the rules than because he actually understands the rule correctly and within the framework of that rule judges the actions we see in this video as interference.

If, upon speaking with the umpire, it's judgement that caused this awful call, we live with it. And I'm not going to insert my judgement into the conversation. But given what we see on this play, I have to strongly suspect a mistaken rule interpretation - and it's imperative that we correct rule errors on the field when possible.

I haven't changed a thing.

the majority of INT and OBS calls are judgement. you simply disagree with his judgement, which I am not suggesting you shouldn't. I am suggesting it is poor crewmanship to question so during play on the field.

I am suggesting you are not a wise partner.

You did. Completely.

If this call was made because of judgement (albeit quite poor), we live with it. I've said nothing different.

My original point ... the one you called me "out of my mind" for ... was that IF this is a rules error, we should fix it - yet then you simply state, without any basis in fact, that it is a judgement call.

If it's a judgement call - I agree with you - we live with the call. I find it highly unlikely that this error is an error in judgement.

You've completely dodged the question I asked you. If you are on the field and partner makes a rules error - do you do nothing, or do you fix it?

Agreed. But I have a strong feeling that this one is not - strong enough that I think it's important to find out one way or the other. I find it hard to imagine what partner saw here (judgement) that would make this a right call by rule. I invite you to give me an example of what he might say that would make this a right call, by rule. What could he have seen here that makes this the right ruling?

get over your feelings and your urgent sense of judgement.

you can reconcile after the game and fix any errors you find with partners postgame. on the field, this a partners judgement call, period. and that is the way you want to leave it. if asked by anyone other than your BU, that is how you should convey in words and body language during and after the game.

:eek:

I think we've just been insulted! :D

Only a few of you:cool:

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 :)

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.

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.

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. :D

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

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?

are you stupid enuff? :p

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.

Am I wrong, or are we still waiting for an answer here?

LOL! do you need closure?

Two UICs agree that this is a JUDGEMENT call. Read the whole thread, and see Irish flip out about "act" before the state UIC has to ride in white knight.

WARREN - HUNTERDON - WEST MORRIS ASA - (Flemington, NJ) - powered by LeagueLineup.com

The question being asked has NOTHING to do with the original play. It has to do with the general subject of getting with your partner immediately after he/she boots a call involving a rule misinterpretation. Mike even offered you an example--your partner makes an IFF call with two outs--to get your take on the situation.

The impression I get from your continual dodging of the question is that you would let it go until the post-game discussion.

But since you insist on going back to the original play, let's say you're the PU, and you overhear your partner tell the base coach that the reason he called the runner going back to first base out was because the rules require a batter to run in fair territory on any batted ball that is caught in foul territory. Are you going to let that go?

I'm not insisting anything. That would be you. But I will entertain it to calm your nerves.

what difference does it make if I am PU or BU? who is the conversation directed? is the partner having a private with the coach, or did the partner make it obvious to everyone already?

OK! I understand.

since this is a judgement call, I thought it was a basic and obvious answer that did not need expounding.

are you confusing misinterpretation with misapplication?

Since you are asking me personally, I would never intitate any questioning of partners judgment call. I would not disagree or convey doubt on any way even if I think my patner misinterpreted a rule unless asked. I would conference for rules I think that are misapplied or verbalized showing misapplication of a rule.

I would discuss in postgame. and all this is just me, I am not telling anyone else ehat they should or should not do.

Not to kill this overly dead horse...

The reason for my question, and for Manny's attempt at clarification, is that contrary to your insistence that this can only be a judgement call on BU's part, I think it's extremely clear (to me at least) that there is both judgement and rules interpretation in play here.

If you disagree, then fine. And if PU disagrees - and thinks this mistake HAS to be simply horrid judgement on his partner's part - then I agree with you that he should let it lie.

My point was, however, that I find it MUCH MUCH more likely that BU made this call because he misunderstands the interference rule wrt retired runners.

and what makes you so certain that this is a misapplication, or/vs misinterpretation. are you so sure your judgement is superior?

Huh? The video clip. I might not have had the same surety of judgement real time, on the field. But when you have the luxury of video - seems to me this is rather clear.

I assumed from the get-go that you (like just about everyone else here) could agree, from the video, that interference is the wrong call. That's not personal superiority of judgement on my part at all.

"Not Inferference" on this video is as clear as "Not Safe" is on the Jim Joyce video. If watching a video of the Jim Joyce play makes me claim the runner was out - would you say I was insisting my judgement was superior?

"huh?" if you had "feelings", you are not sure. you even said so.

so I will ask you again. are you the one that is going to try to change your partners mind on this call?

My answer:

ASA 10.3-B. "Under no circumstances will any umpire seek to reverse a decision made by an associate, nor shall any umpire criticize or interfere with the duties of their associate(s), unless asked to do so. Similar wording exists in every other ruleset and mechanics manuals.

I may be missing the part inferred by others, but this doesn't say or differentiate between a judgment call and a rule application. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is only one right way to deal with this. Stay out of it. If a coach asks, you refer him to the umpire that made the call. Only if/when your partner asks do you suggest in live time it may have been a wrong rule application. Interfere on your own, and your interference is not only inappropriate and illegal, but any call reversal is now protestable, since YOU violated a rule seeking the reversal.

Post-game, have at it.

You don't have to ask. This conversation started with me stating the answer to that question.

And "change my partner's mind" was not what this was about anyway.

And at this point, I've had enough.

Coming from you, this carries quite a bit of weight ... but I have to add that we've been told more than once, at multiple levels, that umpires should act to rectify protestable situations before they arise. The example(s) I've brought up in this thread is usually the example given when this is discussed. A partner incorrectly calls a batter out in IFF with 2 outs (or with runners not on at least 1st and 2nd) - you don't wait for the coach to come out and argue, you fix it. Less often, the other example I mentioned - awarding of bases from TOT instead of TOP (or vice versa) should be fixed without waiting for a coach.

If this is not what ASA wants - it needs to be better deseminated through the clinic process.

Steve, NCAA 15.9.2 does specifically mention that the "seek to reverse" prohibition applies to judgment decisions. The rulebook does not make mention if the same is true on a rule application. Perhaps that is covered in the CCA manual, I don't know.

Like Mike, I, too, have been told in clinics that I should have corrected a partner's erroneous rule application. I had a situation (in a FED game, not an ASA game) where F7 was running toward the foul line to catch a fly ball, and the ball deflected off her foot and went 90-degrees towards and over a DBT line (no fence). My PU partner awarded the batter third base on the play, informing the defensive coach that the award was two bases from when the ball hit the fielder's foot, and that the BR was past first base when that happened. The rule on a deflected batted ball is two bases from the pitch, so she should have only been awarded second, and I was told by clinic staff later when I described the play that I should have made the correction.

I only reply, because the question keeps getting asked as if challenging me to answer directly.

It depends on how it happens. In a few cases, I may be able to make a subtle indication (like maybe placing enters on the wrong base on a ball out of play our an interference call), but as rule, no, I would not correct my partner.
Isn't it a coaches job to question the call if he believes it is an improper application of rules?
If that happens and my partner wants to discuss it with me, I'll be happy to tell him what I know.
The last thing I want to do is get into a posting contest with my partner.

Had this a few months ago when we had a ball hit a stationary discarded bat on fair territory and she killed the ball and called the batter/ runner out.
Coach questioned her and she did call us in for a conference.
Her judgement was that the ball hit the bat, so we had to inform her that it should not have been a dead ball and the batter was not out.
Defense was not happy, but.....

OK, let me restate.

In the video that started this routine (note: I only watched the abbreviated version), the offensive coaches appeared to walk off with no comment. There is no way the PU should initiate this conversation unasked, unchallenged; I don't care if ASA, NCAA or NFHS. In NCAA, refer to "crewness", if nothing else. He kicked the rule, move on and discuss later. Nothing tells us to jump in unasked; plenty tells us not to.

Now, if the offended coach challenges, steer him to the calling official. We are taught to linger in the vicinity anyway; if needed (and if calling official is hesitant or bolluxing a response), be obviously available to your partner as a resource. Baseball suggests a look, or a signal, that you have something pertinent to add; valid here, maybe, but still following the "stay out unless asked" rule. If partner is handling professionally, even if wrong, stay out of it.

Avoiding a protestable situation means not letting it get to the "I protest" stage, it doesn't mean insinuating yourself into your partner's decision unasked. The coaches have a purpose; it isn't sniping about every pitch, but they sure as he!! need to know when to insist on an explanation, and a crew discussion, or else filing a protest. If the coach does his job, we have our crew discussion in live time; if he (coach) accepts the (wrong) ruling, we go on and address later.

If any clinician suggested you step in unasked, I would question the credentials of that person; it simply cannot happen like that.

You mean the PU shouldn't be running out to the BU telling him he screwed up? ;)

I couldn't agree more with Steve here. How many times over the years have we discussed Ol' Smitty or "the guy last night" which "sold" and inaccurate rule interpretation? How many times have we had folks on this and other boards openly state that the next time another umpire jumps in on a call/ruling uninvited, it would be the last time that person would work with them?

How many of us have had an opinion differing from that of the umpire who made the call and interjected themselves (Tom, that's for you) into the play uninvited? How many have found a way to get ones partner's attention in an effort to have a discussion prior to a final ruling? If they do, fine. If they don't, we will discuss it later.

Even when teaching a rookie umpire, I will let them make the call. I will also pre-game with them that if they see me pointing to myself and they are being questioned by the coach, I have input available. I do this as a matter of maintaining protocol on the field so teams don't see anything different than from a regular game. How many times have we been victims of what the "other guy" did in the game last night or last weekend's tournaments?

Fair enough, and noted...

Now... how to bring this up when they contradict it in the next wave of clinics! :)

but is it OK to gawk? simply agreeing per rule doesn't mean we do so just in fact, but also appearance. as umpires, does that mean we now gotta be thespians? well, are we not in a sense?

when you click a ball when you partner calls a strike, then you quickly flip your indicator wheels to correct, you don't think that base coach can hear and figure what you are thinking? you partner bangs a call, and you stare incredulously at the play. you mitght as well have said "WTF" out loud.

the partner that interjects openly is telling everyone what he is. the one that conveys nonverbally, that is the dangerous one. that is the one is critical of your zone on every pitch. that is the one evaluating your every call and movement. that is the one crying out that he thinks he is the better umpire.

to conform in fact is required. but to do so jn appearance is what separates the "me" umpire from the "we" umpire.

so, which one are you?

;)

Although, you should have typed "ourselves" rather than "themselves". :)

I started out as a baseball-only umpire, and that's how we were taught "over there". No matter how egregious the mistake, we were not to interject ourselves at all until the umpire who made the call asks for help.

It wasn't until I came over to the softball side where I was getting instruction that we could "help" our partner out without his/her request. Not so much to just jump in and say, "NO! NO! You got that wrong!" but to come in and provide assistance when a coach complains about the call even when the partner doesn't ask for help. I thought it was just one of those softball things. :p

I'll be more than happy to revert back to the way I was originally taught.

Cite the same thing Steve has, 10.3.B (ASA) and ask the clinician to explain it.

I have asked coaches to protest when they insisted I was wrong because the "other guy" ruled otherwise. What are you going to do when the umpire interjecting him/herself is WRONG? Being wrong when discussing it after the game is one thing, on the field would be a disaster.

so to avoid disaster for you, you urged coaches to protest in order to show that your other interjecting umpires are wrong? aren't you simply using the coaches to show up your partners?

Read the sentences in the order presented. The latter sentence is not related to the previous.

If I urge a coach to protest, it is to stop the incessant arguing over something I know to be correct. Are you suggesting the you just continue the argument and give weight to an inaccurate, and in some cases incorrect manner of presenting, specific ruling because you don't want to embarrass another umpire?

I am not suggesting anything, I am curious about your admission.

you wrote that you urged coaches to protest your partners (the "other" guys). this has nothing to do with allowing a coach the inherent right to question by protest. you are saying you would rather be vindicated and openly prove the other guy wrong on field by inviting protest than to wait and do so privately with the other guy in postgame.

You are misinterpreting him.

When he said "the other guy", he means someone who gave the coach bad information in a previous game.

how does one interject from a previous game?

Again, learn how to read in order of presentation. Patrick is correct.

This is what I understood Irish's words to mean, i.e., "the umpire the other day said ... ". A protest will disabuse the coach of the incorrect interpretation.

How can the other guy "interject" in a prior game about a call in the present game?

Please stop being myopic about this. :(

Haven't you ever had a coach tell you a wrong rule that affects your current game, because the coach heard it in a prior game? :rolleyes:

what does this have to do with throwing a partner under the bus?

Let me try to explain what I believe Shagpal is just not getting; not getting to the point that everyone else is getting aggravated. Pretty clear he (Shagpal) wants to push any ASA button he can, and Mike is clearly ASA, but if it is just not reading past what he thinks he sees, I'm giving it one last try.

I could be misunderstanding Mike, but I don't think so; I read two separate thoughts partially combined. I have inserted bold, underlined, and numbered the two thoughts I see.

(1) Talking about the coach being unhappy because this isn't what another umpire ruled another time at another game, and doesn't want to accept tonight's ruling. Mike suggests the protest on tonight's ruling to get back to playing softball; tonight. "Other guy" now means another game, not "the umpire interjecting".

(2) Talking about why a partner should NOT interject now in THIS game; how do you resolve when the unsolicited interjection is wrong?? This probably could or should have been in a different paragraph, but I don't believe Mike is suggesting he ever told a coach to protest because his partner and he disagreed on the current play.

Now, I could be wrong, and if so, respond accordingly. Discourse related to the game is why we are here.

But, and the bigger issue to many of us, I believe, is that we don't contribute to this board (or others) to watch members create endless posts picking at created differences because of one's preferred brand of softball, or even the perceived personality of the other member. Let's keep it about the game, please??

steve,

I think there are many ways to read Irish. I am reading him verbatim. I am NOT parsing or combining, nor interpreting, nor hashing, none of that garbage. its one paragraph, same continious thought. I am not onboard to what others are introducing into it.

most venues read Irish as a chip out to prove his merits on forums, which translates to him chipping himself on the field, and now admittedly at any cost. that sentiment is not just here, but those other social media outlets as well. its all in the threads. being an ASA rule guru has not translated into professionalism and crewism.

the bigger question is, why steer anyone, coach, parent, whomever to protest ANY umpire, on any field at any time, even as a challenge to thy self? what would Irish or any umpire gain other than vindication for own ego sake and at embarassment of coach, game and crew? and Irish just bragged about it here.

I simply don't like the ASAism and antics like what Irish and others would pull and what that represents. and why do the forum ASAlets and groupies here spin control for Irish as if he's their pimp? maybe, they are and he is.

my view is, the ASA is empty on crewness and professionalism unlike how it is imperative in NCAA. and, it reflects poorly. even our mod md longhorn missed that till you cited it. did it really require a citing?

I'll let you and company have that.

Whatever

This thread is no longer serving any purpose.