During a high school game (federation rules) - R1 on second base, batter hits a ground ball to shortstop. R1, ball, shortstop all converge, R1 leaps over ball in front of shortstop (in order to avoid behing hit by the batted ball) never breaking stride, absolutely no contact between the 3, but shortstop misses the ball, runners safe at first and third. To my surprise, coach of the defensive team can't believe I didn't call interference on R1. I say "how did she interfere?" to which he replied "she blocked her vision of the play".

People afterward told me they had seen this called before. Granted it was in another state, but am I missing something?

High school players, no contact, no break of stride - nope, I don't think you're missing anything. Sounds like nothing to me.

Steve M

I don't know...if she seriously could not see the ball because of the action of the runner, interference might would be an option. Certainly a HTBT kind of play, but the possibility is open to interference.

If the discription is accurate, I'm with Steve. No interference.
Roger Greene

Nawww
 

Naw, you aren't missing anything. I know several umpires that call that interference. I highly disagree. I call it smart ball. We have talked about it everytime it's called, and, by the results so far, will continue to discuss it. Neither side gives an inch on this discussion. It's just a matter of what the blue sees and wants.

Rick

No contact,no breaking of stride,no verbal interference?? I have nothing here guys.Play on.

Jeff

What's the matter with you guys, don't you ever actually read http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-036.gif the rule books you are given? Just kidding! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-001.gif

I think the basis for the disagreement on this call is a difference in the rules between ASA (and several others) and NFHS, and a difference in how the interference rules are applied at the upper JO ages v the younger.

NFHS defines interference as being physical or verbal.

ASA includes visual distraction in POE 32.

Whether a high school player should be distracted by a runner crossing between her and the ball is another matter.

I disagree. If this play happened as described, there isn't even a remote possibility of interference. The runner did what she is supposed to do, run to the next base while avoiding being hit by a fair batted ball.

Is there a rule forbidding a runner from passing between the ball and the fielder? No.

Did the runner act in any manner contrary to how she is supposed to act? No.

Do you expect runners to just stand there waiting on the ball to pass prior to advancing to the next base? No.

If a defender is playing deep and waiting on a batted ball, do we expect the runner to take a 20' detour to run behind the fielder? No.

If the defense wants an unobstructed view of the ball, tell them to move up or charge the ball. If not, they are ceding the territory in front of them to the offense.

But then again, we are talking about the organization which wants umpires to rule on a 3' lane violation on a walk.

Thanks for all the backup. You have especially put my argument into words, Mike. I would like to have asked the same questions to the coach. I felt good about my call and better now.

On the play in question, no interference. If we go by what we have seen other umpires call, then practically anything goes. I've seen umps call a runner out because the fielder might have become distracted by hearing the runner's footsteps.

However:

<b>"We are talking about the organization which wants umpires to rule on a 3' lane violation on a walk."</b>

Wasn't aware of that. Exactly what are they saying?

As of two years ago, NFHS provided an interpretation on the 3' lane violation that would rule a walked BR out if they were contacted with a thrown ball to 1B while not within the running lane.

No disagreement with the above, but wondering what ASA means by "visual distraction".

Don't know where you are reading that in the book, but it would apply to a runner waving their arms when passing a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, or a runner waving his arms above his head in an attempt to interfere with a throw and possible distracting the recipient of the throw.

That was my thought, too, Mike - some obvious intentional act to disrupt the fielder's view. Where it is in the rule book is POE 32. Here is the sentence in question...

<font color=blue>It </font>(that is, interference)<font color=blue> may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, <u><b>visual distraction</b></u>, or any type of distraction which would hinder the fielder in the execution of the play.</font>

No further explanation is given, and "visual distraction" is not in any of the case plays.

[Edited by Dakota on Aug 25th, 2003 at 11:49 AM]

I used to ump in Tampa where a nudie joint, "The 2001 Club", had a co-ed team. I never saw, but heard of times when the ladies would flash the other teams to try and make them drop infield flies. I wonder if this is what ASA is discussing.

BTW, when I asked my buds if the flashing cause the other time not to catch it, they replied, "You think I was watching the ball?"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SC Ump
[B]How about when the batter has a 3-0 count and starts waving the bat around like she might bunt?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bethsdad
[B]You only ever see that garbage in the younger levels. As the players get older, more skilled, & more knowledgable, that stuff stops. And the players will pretty much police themselves in this.

Steve M

We could come up with all kinds of acts that could be ruled interference if the wording of the rule & POE were taken literally. After all, it says interference is any <font color=blue>"act ... that impedes, hinders, or <u>confuses</u> a defensive player...</font>

Fake bunts, no matter how silly looking, are not interference.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bethsdad
[B]What about it? Maybe she wants the opportunity to bunt should the proper pitch present itself, that isn't up to the umpire to read her mind.

Does it affect a fielder attempting to field a batted ball? Does it affect the defense throwing a ball in an attempt to put out a runner?

There is a sect of softball people who believe they have the right to force their standards of ethical play upon others. I'm not one of them. Just because something may seem "bush", doesn't make it illegal. As an umpire, my job is to apply the rules in the book, not make up my own sense of fair play.

Speaking ASA, this is not illegal.

Yes, but isn't there something to not letting players, coaches, fans make a travesty of the game? Following the "letter of the law" I believe only works 99.9% of the time. If allowed, some people (read: coaches) will bend the rules to the breaking point. Case in point from my experience: coach in the 3rd base box sees the grip on a pitcher's hand, and yells the pitch, expecially change-up, to the batter as the pitch is being delivered. Upon being told to stop, he replies "I'm talking to my batter, not the pitcher". The pitcher is visibly upset, cannot deliver the pitches, the coach doesn't stop, obviously his job is done.
This is a game I am watching from the sidelines (my game off). I called him on it the next game, he said he didn't have to stop, I tell him if he continues I'll toss him for unsportsmanlike conduct. He complains to my UIC, my UIC backs me and tells him he will not allow him to make a travesty of the game. The coach asks for it to be pointed out in the rule book, the UIC says he doesn't have to point out a single rule to cover this particular infraction, that it is his job to make sure the game is played fairly for all.

I have no problem with your UIC backing you up, but the coach is correct.

If a pitcher isn't capable of concealing her pitches, that is a problem for her coach, not the umpire. We have enough to do on the field without "making up" for a player's shortcomings.

Stealing signals or catching tip-offs and sharing them is not against the rules. ASA, or any of the sanctioning bodies, presents a rule book and other guidelines upon which to base our duties. I find no advantage to an umpire imposing their personal feelings of what is or is not fair upon teams.

As an umpire, I would never stop the coach from doing this. I might, however, have a problem with his/her timing. If it happened as the pitcher began her delivery, then I could support a USC ruling if s/he refused to stop.

Of course, if the coach had half a brain, he would have coded his signals. Then what are you going to do, insist you can read his/her mind? And, I have no problem with coaches attempting to bend the rules. When they go beyond that point is when we, as umpires, step in. That is why when there are violations it is referred to as "breaking" the rules. No mention of "bending."

JMHO,

I'd like to add, that having a nice talk with the 3B coach would probably occur to try and convince him/her to take the high road. If s/he doesn't stop at that point, I'll enforce the available rules when and if applicable.

Yes, there is, but your example is not making a travesty of the game, IMO.

The ONLY thing I would care about in the situation you presented is the timing and the decibels of the coach's instructions to his batter. If he was disrupting the pitcher's concentration during her delivery by yelling very loudly timed with her delivery, then I would put a stop to it, just as I would the dugout players banging on the fence or shouting at a similar time in the pitcher's motion, or the defensive players shouting "SWING" just as the ball reaches the plate.

But the issue would be timing and decibels, not content.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a coach giving his batter instruction about what pitch to watch for, whether it is based on his knowledge of general game strategy, his knowledge of the particular team/coach's tendancies, his knowledge of the particular pitcher's skill/tendancies, his stealing of the signs from the catcher, or his observing the grip on the ball. In fact, I don't even consider this "bending" the rules - it is just plain not illegal.

Let me expand on the situation: I told the coach that I didn't like what I was hearing from the coaches box, and I'd like it to stop. He told me to go back and umpire, he wasn't breaking any rules. He was SCREAMING the pitch (14u game) exactly in the middle of the delivery, doing the most damage possible. Everyone in the park knew why, including the parents of his players. It's not in the rules but it is bush league, cheap, or whatever, and I put a stop to it. And I think it is making a travesty of the game. It's not letting the players decide the outcome.

I would have put a stop to that, too, but because of timing and decibels, not because he was being unfair or making a travesty of the game by giving his batter information about the pitch. It could be ruled as either unsportsmanlike conduct, or verbal interferance. Either way, it would stop or the coach would be gone.

And, again, the "it" that would stop would be the screaming during the pitch, not the instructing of the batter.

This first thing I would do is what Mike suggested. After the first occurance, call time and have a quiet one-on-one conversation with the coach informing him that it will stop, and what rules he is violating.

On the second occurance, the coach is heading toward the parking lot. And, I may even enforce verbal interferance and call the runner closest to home out.

coaches...if you are going to be stealing signs, be smart about it. Don't yell out the pitch. If it is a fastball say the the batter "quick bat" if it is a change say "sit back" so simple and it just sounds like you are instructiong your players.

I've got no specific rule violation on the coach (or the players in this example) unless I felt someone was doing something to try and make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch.

I have never had a problem with the defense yelling "SWING" or "SWING BATTER", as long as they are not yelling things to make the batter think she has to step out (like "HEADS UP" or "BALL IN" on two fields that are close together and have foul balls constantly coming across.)

When it's getting extreme, I will normalling say in passing to the offender(s) something like, "That's pretty bush league. I usually only see it done at <u>{insert po-dunk local town name}</u>." They usually stops when they realize it truly is bush league and yields very little results.

If a pitcher is broadcasting her pitches during her delivery, then she should be mad at <i>her</i> pitching coach, not the opposing coach who notices it.

Tom,

Where do you get verbal interference? I don't believe there is any rule to support that. USC under 10.9.A is a possibility.

However, just how much help do you think the batter is going to get having the pitch screamed out with less than a second to react? The screaming alone would most likely be just as distracting to the batter as it is to the pitcher.

It may be bush or cheap, but that doesn't make it illegal. The one thing it is for sure is STUPID!

see newer thread: "ASA - running lane violation with a walk "


[Edited by CecilOne on Sep 2nd, 2003 at 11:04 AM]

IMHO, a ludicrous interpretation whether intentional or not.

Verbal interference is a stretch, and I just tossed that in. It would be based on the definition of interference (act ... that confuses ...) plus the POE which adds the "verbal distraction" part plus ruling that the play being interfered with is the pitch.

OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it! ;)

USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned.

6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.

Caveat: this is all assuming younger JO ball. 18U & Adults may be a different standard.

Nope, in ASA and I assume others, the pitch is not a play.

Quote:

OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it! ;) USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned. 6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.

Yep, I can buy into this more than anything else, BUT I would have to see it actually affecting the pitcher's delivery. That you specifically notes that the act be taken in an effort to cause an illegal pitch.

Of course, after I talk to the offensive coach, I may have to go over and explain to the pitcher's coach that there is nothing I can do if his actions are not trying to cause in illegal pitch. ;)

Quote:

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.

[/b][/quote]

Nice try, not even close. Players hollering SWING are talking TO the opponent, not their own team. This is covered by the last sentence in ASA's 10.9.A

Yeah, I know. But it should be! ;)
That's why pure USC is the better angle, I suppose. Although, especially at younger ages, it is not much of a stretch to see this kind of crazy-coach act causing a pitcher to react to the screaming maniac just off her port bow.
I probably shouldn't have brought up SWING, since you are right, it is different.

Trying to put this kind of situation down in writing is dicey since it is a "know it when you see it" thing, not easily described. No one would consider F5 / F3 charging to the batter yelling <big>BUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNT</big> to be any kind of violation, nor would a coach yelling hitting instructions to the batter be anything unusual.

Yet, the situation that I visualize in what was described here is more than the coach just giving instructions. It is with intent to disrupt the pitch. That is what would make it illegal and USC.

Yep, we are both in agreement there.

Personally, though in the minority, I think 6.5.B applies to players running up screaming "bunt". I really don't like that. Just as much as I hate catchers who call out "lefty" or "left foot" when a left-handed batter enters the box.

What? Do they think their fellow players are blind to too dumb to notice? Truly, stupid is as stupid does!

see newer thread: "ASA - running lane violation with a walk "

[Edited by CecilOne on Sep 2nd, 2003 at 11:00 AM]

Agree with poor interp.
 

Precaution for what? There is none. The only plausible reason that a catcher would throw to 1st is if the runner had rounded the base (is now beyond the 3 foot lane) and is now trying to draw a throw/play. The batter runner is not in jeopardy of being thrown out between home and 1st... I agree with those that have said it is a very poor interpretation to allow a runner that is not in jeopardy to be called out because the catcher wants to hit them in the back with a thrown ball... because they are not in the 3 foot lane.

There is no reason for the catcher to make that throw. I would be willing to toss the catcher if I felt his hitting the BR was intentional.

The running lane is there to keep the runner from interfering with a defender taking a throw at 1B to make a play.

There is no play available as the BR is permitted to advance to 1B without liability to be put out. Preemptive moves by the defense should be made at their own expense and liability.

I made this very argument with a Fed rules committee member a few years ago. He felt that Fed had the interp that they wanted. Apparently they do, since there hasn't been a change (correction) made.

Steve M

Re: Agree with poor interp.
 

The catcher might make the throw to prevent the runner advancing or bluffing to 2nd, or because F3 is breaking in a new mitt, or to fake out another runner, or because the catcher thought it was strike three. It doesn't matter whether it is strategic or makes sense, only what the rules say. The literal wording of the rule has no exception for becoming a BR by a walk, so how could the application be any different? We are not talking about "the catcher wants to hit them in the back". We are talking about the catcher wants the fielder at 1st to have the ball. Don't forget the second part of the "interpretation" disallowed intentionally "pegging" the BR.

Willing to and would!

Here is a situation that could happen with the walk and the throwing lane.

No one on base and B1 at bat with a 3-2 count. Pitch is thrown in the dirt and B1 checks his swing as the ball gets away from the catcher. Plate umpire calls ball. B1 takes off hard to first. The catcher, believing that the batter went around, gathers the ball and throws down to first to get the out on the dropped third strike. The runner, outside the three foot lane, interfers with 1B taking the throw and ball goes out into right field and runner takes second.

Now, if I were a coach I would argue for the interference on this play. If the catcher waits for an appeal on the checked swing, he/she may not be able to throw down in time to get the out on the dropped third strike. Because the runner interfered with 1B taking the throw, they are now at second instead of first.

That is about the only situation I could see happening on a walk where interference could be a factor. As an ump, what would you do in this situation?


How about same situation except R2 at 3B and R2 scores after the interference?

I'm sure I'll get blasted so fire away.

[Edited by gsf23 on Aug 29th, 2003 at 01:02 PM]

Live Ball
 

Bad choice to throw to 1st rather than get runner advancing from third. BR is not in jeopardy in my game until he passes 1st - ball got past catcher, he is throwing from foul territory, runner is inside diamond, poor throw, no interference.

Don't know. Had to be there. shrug... (Nice defense coach.)

And that is fine because if a SWING is ruled, it is no longer a "walk" which makes the throw a viable play and the INT applies.

So then are you saying that the catcher should wait for the appeal from one of the base umpires and loose the chance of putting the runner out instead of risking the throw and the appeal then being denied?

Wow, you guys came up with a kinda lose-lose here. Probably the only way out for the catcher is to make the throw, get it there before the runner, then appeal. If she gets the appeal and the BU says she went, it's a dropped 3rd strike and then the BU gets to call the BR out. What it boils down to is the catcher has to take care of the business at hand, hope the 1st baseman is looking at the girl at 3rd for a possible play. Once the play stops, make the appeal and stand by for the fireworks show, which is surely to follow. I'd kinda like to be on the field for this call.

Rick

Mike,

POE #32.

Just the first few lines.

"Interference is defined as the act of an offensive player or
team member which impeds, hinders or confuses a defensive player,
attempting to excute a play. It may be in the form of physical
contact, <u>verbal distraction</u>, visual distraction, or any type
of distraction which would hinder the fielder in the execution
of the play."

In order to have a play, the ball must the delivered by the pitcher.
I believe you could call this and sell it. Mostly in the younger
ages, but it would be confusing, hindering and even impeding
[to retard in movement or progress by means of hindrnace.]

Realize it is far fetched, butttt....

glen

This comment is on the general situation of a B becoming a BR via BOB ;)

(see separate thread for what used to be here.)

[Edited by Dakota on Aug 30th, 2003 at 11:19 AM]

No, I did not even remotely insinuate that, please don't put words into my mouth. I responded directly to the scenario you offered.

Since most catcher's have less of a clue than the umpires when asking for help, taking direction from their coaches, if it is not ruled a swing, tough, it is just a DMC.

Besides, can someone please tell me how often a D3K which gets away from the catcher is going to contact the BR running in fair territory as the ball is coming most likely from the foul side of the 1B line? And when it does, isn't that an indication the defense most likely set up improperly to receive the throw at 1B?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it isn't likely to be the majority of the time.

And, if anyone remembers, we were talking about a walk here, not the dream plays which seems to dominate the convesation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by gsf23
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B]

And, if anyone remembers, we were talking about a walk here, not the dream plays which seems to dominate the convesation.


***********************
I thought we were talking about a battted ball to F6 with R2 advancing....but that was 4 pages ago.

Roger Greene

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by gsf23
[B]True, Roger. Caught in the trap I try to avoid. As I've said before, we need to keep the threads separate. When the scenario morphs into something different from the original, we need to start a new thread.

Shame on me for following the path.