New partner
 

PONY State tournament this weekend. Already have team A mad at me (apparently their batter should be allowed to accidentally interfere with a D3k, but whatever)...

Partner's in "C", grounder to F6, fires to F3. I'm in holding position, ball solidly in F3's glove, no pulled foot.
I bust up for the play at 3rd when I hear behind me "she bobbled it!" (1B coach)
With no play at 3rd, I work my way back to plate, when Partner calls me to him. I think "oh no, don't say it..."

Partner: "did you have a bobble on the transfer?"
Me: "Why ask me that? Has nothing to do with this play."
Partner: "Absolutely it does! Did you have it?"
Me: "Listen to me. If you call that, defense will protest the call and they will win. I don't want that on my field."
He didn't budge. Called the runner safe.

Talking to a brick wall, I walked away. Fortunately, defense was as clueless as he, so no protest.

Anybody here ever overturn a call that was not judgement, but rule interp?

I'm confused by your question. This IS a judgment call. You're judging whether or not F3 maintained control of the ball at first base. If you're certain that F3 did control the ball, why didn't you just tell your partner just that?

My point to him was, she had control of the thrown ball, with foot on the bag, before the runner got there. Bobbling a transfer had ZERO to do with the criteria needed for an out.

When you bring your partner in to ask for his input, have a precise question for him. Did she hold the bag? Did you see daylight between the runner and the sweep tag?

His precise question was a non-factor in whether the out was made.

I did tell him I had control at the time of the out (and he agreed), but he also wanted a controlled transfer. Not relevant.

Not a judgement at that point, but a rule interp.

Sorry if I just said the same thing 5 times...

Or is he trying to say the rule is maintaining control throughout the play, not just at the time of the touch/tag? :confused:

You should have simply stuck with "She had control at the time of the out." And if he asked, "did she bobble on the transfer", say, "that's not relevant to this play but I did not see that, I was moving to my possible play at third after the out was secured at first"... or maybe something less wordy.

But as to your actual question, YES, you (if you are UIC, and not simply PU) have the responsibility to fix a known mistaken rule interpretation. If you don't have a designated UIC or Crew Chief (not all areas do) for the game, your rules argument is simply your interp against his ... and while we all know, here, that your interp is right --- on the field how do you know who is right when 2 people simply have 2 differing interpretations of a rule (one is right, one is wrong ... but the PU is not right by definition).

Okay, that is what I ask of the coach who comes to me with a concern over my call. I don't require the same thing from my partner! We're a team out there, and we need to be able to discuss the whole play to get the call right. Making those kinds of demands for "precise questions" with nothing else that you consider superfluous is a short road to losing your partner's desire to work with you, IMHO.

I disagree. You should never go to your partner if you don't have a specific question in mind. "What did you see?" is the worst question ever, and it makes me cringe when my partner asks that.

If coach gets him to come to me, it should be because of something specific - therefore the question to us should be specific as well.

Yes, those make me cringe as well. But I will respond with, "What did the coach want you to get help with?" and not with, "What is your precise question?"

I guess I just took jmkupka's tone wrong (problem with internet discussion boards). I read it as, "Don't come to me unless you have a precise question; othewise, go back to your position." My point was we should be a little more forgiving when we talk to each other about a play, and not treat each other like coaches.

I'm more interested in this part. What happened there?

Rit

Dropped 3rd strike, ball bounced forward, got tangled up in B/R's feet & shot to the side a bit as F2 was reaching for it.
A glancing contact might be ignored, however this did interfere with F2's attempt to retrieve it.

Um ... what?

That would not be interference if it were not intentional.

What rule code? Does Pony have it's own?

Rita

Found the PONY softball rule code. 8-3

Not interference.

Rita

The PONY (8.7.h) rule is like the other association, intent is not necessary.

I didn't want to assume. I knew it wasn't part of any code I do use.

Rita

Which reminds me, saw this play recently.
R running from 1st, fly ball to RF, caught. F9 throws to 1st in time for the tag up out.
Tag made, runner's slide carries her into F3, ball comes out when they fall.
Out or safe.

Out

Out.

Which code is that, Rita? Under most softball codes, any batter-runner hindrance with an uncaught third strike is interference, whether intentional or not.

And for what it's worth, I believe OBR 7.09(a) has new expanded language that does not include intent.

MD & Rita, accepting your interps almost as often as Irish's, are you still skeptical about my int call?

Irish, am I correct in assuming you agree with my call?

HTBT sure, but assume no intent, and F2 grabbed at thin air because the ball shot off B/Rs foot...

BTW my online 2014 PONY book has it as 9.7.h (not 8.7.h)

thanks all...

I'm not sure Irish agreed with the out or disagreed with Rita or I.

I did not say intent was required. It's not. All Irish did was clarify that.

That said, you were there, we were not - but just given your description of the play, I don't see interference.

While it doesn't require INTENT, it still requires INTERFERENCE to be ruled as such. Given the way you describe the play - the ball coming off the catcher toward the batter and then coming out --- what did the batter DO that got the INT call? I guess what I'm saying is that it requires action (or perhaps negligent inaction) on the batters part to have INT here. Just happening to be in the path of the ball that ricochets off the catcher and into his legs is not interference on his part.

If the batter (intentionally or unintentionally) kicked the ball such that the catcher no longer had a play --- then we have INT.

If the batter (intentionally or simply obliviously) remains in the catcher's way longer than necessary, and somehow causes the catcher to no longer have a play --- then again you could have INT.

You, the umpire, has to decide at what point during the action that the batter is responsible for what happened (again, intent not being a factor). Immediately after the ball comes off the catcher, whatever happens is not the batter's fault.

In other words, the way it's been explained to me by my betters is that the batter has to DO something on this play that warrants interference. (Intent being irrelevant, but ACTION being relevant).

(PS - I welcome any elaboration or even contradiction from Irish on this).

You didn't say, but did F3 tag the runner or the base?

The question you need to answer to yourself: Did F3 have control of the ball in her hand/glove when she made the tag? If so, then you have an out.

In your play, if F3 tagged the runner, and then the ball popped out on the fall, you could judge that F3 never had control of the ball at the time of the tag. It really depends how quickly things took place (tag, contact, fall, ball comes loose). Any discernable time between the tag and when the ball popped out of the glove, I would judge she controlled it during the tag.

MD, completely agree.

Working a men's FP game with a brick backstop, strike 3 went straight past F2 & ricocheted back to batter's foot, bouncing into the IF, before B/R knew it got past F2. No int.

in the OP, B/R was aware of her situation, & got tangled up with the ball as she passed from RH BB, across the plate, into LH BB...

I would say that's enough extra information that I'd rule INT as well.

Hmmm. I just checked high school softball and no intent required.

OBR 7.09a expanded language includes intent if it bounces off the catcher or umpire.

Doesn't seem right to penalize the batter for unintentionally interfering after the defense has erred. Especially in such tight quarters.


Rita

Rita, I think we on this board have had that "the defense erred" discussion before. Here's the process:

1) Offense failed to hit strike three; be it swinging or called.
2) Defense failed to catch strike three. Defense needs to make a play to complete the out. Offense catches a break here.

How/why does the offense now get consideration for a free pass if batter-runner's actions keep the defense from completing the out? Sure, defense didn't catch it, but offense didn't hit it.

There ought to be some room for doubt for the batter if it lands at her feet.

But if intent isn't to matter, so be it. I'll call it that way. But doesn't mean I have to like it.

Rita

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Yes. It still requires "an act".

Sorry for bringing a baseball discussion here, but the expanded language doesn't include the word "intent". It says it's interference if the batter-runner "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." You can have clear hindrance without intent.

In softball, that clear hindrance requires an act by the batter-runner, as others have mentioned.

Just like a thrown ball hitting a runner who had no intent.

Well, I would agree, but I do not believe ASA does. Even if the BR is moving away and the ball hits them as the catcher is trying to retrieve the ball, it is INT.

I proposed a rule change to include "intent" on the BRs behalf. Only problem was I picked the year that they dumped most of the rest of the "intent" references. Did not even get the support of the umpire committee.

Personally, I'm all for going back the original rule and the batter is out on strike three. End of story, no second chances.

I was looking into the origins of the D3K rule awhile back, and I recall it stemmed from the days way back when F2 was positioned further back & every pitch was caught on the bounce.
That and the theory that every batter-batter/runner must be retired on either a tag or a catch (so that even a K involves a catch).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Which reminds me, saw this play recently.
R running from 1st, fly ball to RF, caught. F9 throws to 1st in time for the tag up out.
Tag made, runner's slide carries her into F3, ball comes out when they fall.
Out or safe.

Visible to the BU (straightlined by runner), tagged the runner, but probably both.

The issue became whether control for the runner tag was sufficient or whether the fielder had to maintain control for the duration of the play (runner's slide carries her into F3, ball comes out when they fall).

This was not a case of the fielder trying to throw, IOW not losing it on "the transfer".

The definition of Tag in most rule sets simply requires the fielder to securely hold the ball in the hand or glove while touching the runner or the base. There is no requirement to maintain the ball in the hand or glove and demonstrate a voluntary and intentional release after the tag.

Where it gets tricky is when the ball comes out of the hand or glove very shortly after the tag. If it happens nearly simultaneously, then you could judge that the fielder didn't securely hold the ball at the moment of the tag. But the bigger the gap in time between the tag and the drop, the more convincing it is to state the ball was securely held when the tag took place.