ASA adult rec. SP, E league (or worse) playoff game. I was PU.

R1 at 3B, R2 at 1B, no outs. Batter hits moderate to slow grounder to F5, who was playing a touch behind the base. R1 make some verbal comments to F5, presumably trying to distract him, and then takes two agressive steps into fair territory, directly toward F5, who by then was even with the base. R1 was going to hold at 3B and was not running home; it was quite obvious to everyone that he was running at F5 to distract him. In my opinion (and not just because he had showed poor sportsmanship the entire game), he was trying to hinder F5's ability to catch and/or throw the ball, I called a dead ball, R1 out.

I awarded the batter 1B and R2 2B. I probably would have let it go had R1 not taken two steps toward F5 into the diamond in an obvious attempt to distract F5. I'm confident I made the correct call, both in terms of interference and awarding the batter 1B, as F5 had no play at 2B for a potential DP and F5 didn't even look there, but threw to 1B (in time to get the runner, but that's irrelevant as the ball was dead by then). I don't think R1 was trying to prevent a DP; he was just trying to make F5 bobble (thus, everyone safe) or make a poor throw to F3.

My partner, who has more years of experience than I and is a highly respected umpire, said I either should have let it go or called a double play, as "the rule book does not cover every situation." I disagreed and said the rule book covers this precisely and that the DP call was only appropriate if it was an obvious attempt to prevent a DP. I think calling a DP (the other out would be the immediately succeeding runner, R2, as I understand the rules) would have been overkill here. The penalty that resulted may not have been that severe here, as F5 would have made the play and R1 was not going home, but that's beside the point and irrelevant, as we cannot "wait and see" how the play turns out before call interference. Any thoughts?

[Edited by Tap on Sep 4th, 2003 at 09:32 AM]

Sounds like a good call to me

Tap,

Sounds like a good call to me.

Good call Tap,

It appears that the defense was only going to get 1 out on the play which they got, plus they lost a guy in scoring position. Sometimes ev en experienced veteran umps can let their judgement be clouded by ome a--hole's actions and want to penalize more than is allowed by the rules. I think you handled the situation quite well.

SamC

Too bad you couldn't think of a way to award 2 outs. Couldn't you have said that the interference prevented F5's chance at an around-the-horn DP?

What would you have called if F5 had not blinked an eye but merely proceeded to get a DP?

Had the batter hit an easy pop to F5, calling a DP would have been in order.

You said that the runner exhibited poor sportsmanship the entire game. Did he argue the call?

Agree
 

I agree with the call you made. The double play potential is with an "intentional" attempt to break up a double play. The other scenario involves a fly ball, where the runner interfering is out and the batter also. It sounds like you went with your gut instinct, which I believe was correct. Just don't over think the situation.

However, I do believe, if the intent was there, and, from the post, I believe it was, he probable deserved to be ejected from the game also. Just a matter of opinion, but I believe if the runner was close enough to deliberately interfere, this is unsportsmanlike conduct and deserves what he gets. Again, that is the prerogative of the umpire who saw the play, but either decision could be backed up.

[Edited by TexBlue on Sep 4th, 2003 at 12:56 PM]

Add me to your corner. You viewed the situation, made an evaluation and ruled on the play in accordance with the rule. Good job.

As long as we're doing hypotheticals lately, and I love absurdity as much as anyone, here's one. What would R1 have to do in this situation to be judged intentionally interfering with a DP?

Exactly what he did, in my book. But, since the throw beat the BR anyway, it didn't work. I would make the same call that was made and eject the player.

Rick

Absolutely the correct call.This is verbal interference.I dont think an ejection is warranted unless profanity was used,he threatened the player, or he argued the call.Good job!

Jeff

<I> <B> I dont think an ejection is warranted unless profanity was used,he threatened the player, or he argued the call. </I> </B>

The original post said "aggressive steps toward F5 were taken" and verbal comments made to distract the player. To me that's enough. That isn't base running, that's a implied threat. Now, I don't call adult ball very much anymore, but that's the makings of several ejections if someone doesn't step in quick and handle it. I'm not saying that the ejection was necessary, it's a HTBT. But it sounds like a viable option.

Rick

<b>What would R1 have to do in this situation to be judged intentionally interfering with a DP?</b>

If the ball had been hard hit to F5, you'd have a case.

I've been trying to think of a way to call R1 out for USC and then call the lead runner out for interference by somebody already out. However, the out on R1 would kill the play.

It seems that a player can sometimes get away with deliberate, unsportsmanlike interference and cost his team only the 1 out the defense would have gotten anyway.

In this case, the interference costs the offense the runner on 3B, but it is possible for such a play to help the offense:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, no outs. Charles grounds to F3, who starts to throw home to get Abel. Baker, seeing that Abel will be out at home, runs over F3. With the interference call, the offense has Abel on 3B, Charles on 1B with 1 out, instead of Baker on 2B and Charles on 1B with 1 out.

Pretty dumb play on behalf of F3. If R2 can run over F3, that means F3 had an easy DP at 1B while still holding R1 on 3B. INT on that play attain the same result.

Good call. R1 OUT for interference. R1 ejected for flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct.

Bob

I hope I would have made the same call. I think it is proper.

I prefer to delay these calls a bit, though. I know this will get some flack, but here is my thinking. Interference is an immediate dead ball at the time of the incident. However, to me an "immediate dead ball" is different than a "dead ball called immdiately."

In our bang-bang calls at bases and calls on tags, we are taught to delay our call to replay the play in your head or insure the fielder really held onto the ball like you think you saw. In the case of interference, I delay the call to insure that what I think I saw really caused the interference. In this particular example, if the runner took two steps and the umpire immediately called dead ball and the fielder did not throw... then would the fielder have thrown if the umpire had not killed the play.

If in this example, the umpire delayed the call slightly and the fielder threw the BR out, then it could be perhaps that R1 <b><i>attempted</i></b> to interfere but actually didn't. (He can still be ejected for USC if so warrented.)

If the umpire delayed the call and the fielder did not throw, or perhaps threw wildly, then the interference could be awarded.

(By the way, I'm not saying the umpire did or did not delay the call in the initial scenario, I'm only using that example for illustrating my outcomes.)

<b>If in this example, the umpire delayed the call slightly and the fielder threw the BR out, then it could be perhaps that R1 attempted to interfere but actually didn't. (He can still be ejected for USC if so warrented.)</b>

This brings up an interesting question. In the case of the batter who throws the bat in anger and then the ball goes over the fence, the call is now out for USC and the runner on 3B goes back. If as in the example above, the umpire waits until the play is over, would a subsequent ejection of R1 for his USC put him out also? If so, we have our two outs. Or does the fact that the USC occurred before the out mean that the USC takes precedence and nullifies the out that occurred afterward?

Abel on 1B. Baker gets a single and on his way to 1B looks back and calls the umpire an obscene name. Abel is thrown out at 3B. <i>Now</i> the ump ejects Baker. Two outs, I guess.

Is an ejection of a runner for USC always an out? If the batter is out for throwing his bat even if the ball goes over the fence, is he out if he throws his bat because he didn't like the call on strike 2?

In all the organizations I know about, there is no provision for an umpire to call an out just because of USC. Perhaps for malicious contract, but not just USC.

USC is just an ejection. In thrown bat situations, I have waited until the play is over.

[Edited by SC Ump on Sep 5th, 2003 at 04:34 AM]

ASA now supports an out call for USC.

Speaking ASA

Whether it is throwing the bat, making gestures, nasty comments, hitting someone, etc., if it is flagrant enough for you to consider it unsportsmanlike conduct, then it is an out. Cannot call one without the other if the reason for the call was USC.

As far as hesitating on a possible interference call, I think that is appropriate as you must ascertain if the offensive player's actions actually interfered with the play. However, you don't wait to the end of the play to make that determination. You can only make that call on the part of the play being executed in which the interference would have been effected.

For example, in the scenario offered, if the fielder makes a clean play after the offensive players actions, they obviously didn't interfere with his ability to make the play. Any subsequent action stands on it's own merit. You cannot call interference if somewhere along the way, something went awry in the play.

<b>For example, in the scenario offered, if the fielder makes a clean play after the offensive players actions, they obviously didn't interfere with his ability to make the play. Any subsequent action stands on it's own merit.</b>

I'm puzzled. If there's physical contact, we call interference even if the fielder makes a clean play. If Abel is on 2B and Baker hits a grounder to F6, don't we call Abel out for interference if he stands in front of F6 and waves his arms, even if F6 fields the ball and completes the play at 1B?

And just when is a runner or batter liable to be put out for USC? Abel gets a single. Ball goes back to the mound. Time out. Abel punches F3. Is Abel out as well as ejected?

Strike 2. Batter says, "F*** you!" Is he ejected <i>and</i> out?

If in these last two cases the runner or batter is out as well as ejected, then runners and batters are at particular risk (compared to fielders or on-deck batters) when they commit USC. If Abel is out at 3B and F5 punches him, F5 is ejected but Abel is still out. If Abel is safe at 3B and punches F5, Abel's status changes: he's out.

[Edited by greymule on Sep 5th, 2003 at 07:04 AM]

The authority is <i>only</i> a case play on a guideline rule (Case Play 10.8-1, and ASA describes rule 10 as "guidelines for umprires.")

I know this has been discussed before on this board, but...

I believe I understand ASA's intent with this case play (and fortunately did not have a situation to test that understanding this year), but I sure hope ASA clarifies the depth and breadth of this interpretation with an actual rule change, and hopefully a couple more case plays.

Using the case play only, I read it to say ASA supports an out for flagrant misconduct. I don't necessarily consider all USC to be flagrant misconduct. And, is there any similar penalty for flagrant misconduct by the defense?

Add me to the rest - that sounds like the right call.

As for a DP? Probably isn't going to happen in a 'D' league on a ball like this.

Steve M

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greymule

I'm puzzled. If there's physical contact, we call interference even if the fielder makes a clean play. If Abel is on 2B and Baker hits a grounder to F6, don't we call Abel out for interference if he stands in front of F6 and waves his arms, even if F6 fields the ball and completes the play at 1B?[/quote}

No, I simply stated sometimes it may be better to make sure the fielder may have actually been effected by the act of the runner. I'm not talking about waiting until the play is over, just a hesitation. Maybe the defense can pull a double play you were not anticipating. There are many umpires on this board that would rule a runner out simply for running in front of a defender fielding the ball. I don't believe that is the proper call, but it happens and the umpire will routinely insist the act of running in "front" of the fielder is enough for an interference call. Meanwhile, the defender turns a double play why that umpire is standing there calling dead ball. Obviously, the "act" did not interfere with the SS making the play. I suggesting that you, as the umpire, use your judgment and slow down before making a call.

In an obvious case of an attempt to interfere, of course, you are going to call the runner out, but that doesn't mean you have to stop the play that millisecond.

Quote:

And just when is a runner or batter liable to be put out for USC? Abel gets a single. Ball goes back to the mound. Time out. Abel punches F3. Is Abel out as well as ejected? Strike 2. Batter says, "F*** you!" Is he ejected <i>and</i> out?

I'm sorry, Grey, but where have you been all year? Beginning around February, this has been discussed at length on more than on occasion on this board. It is in the case book. It was on the test. I questioned Bob Savoie on it and was directed to rule in that manner and it was the NUS fault the book did not get corrected. He insured me that if such a ruling was protested, Oklahoma City (ASA) would rule on the side of the out and ejection. I believed I reported that on this board and McGriffs.

I may have even raised the issue before then because I was talking with Walt Sparks about it last August at the Interservice National in FL.

It's real simple, if an active offensive player commits and act of unsportsmanlike conduct, the ball is dead, the player is ruled out and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the USC.

I participated heavily in that discussion. I was just wondering how far the USC/out rule extended, since we have only that one test question to go by and did not discuss a variety of alternative situations.

I do recall that we agreed that (1) there was no game penalty an umpire could exact if a runner's USC occurred after the winning run scored, and (2) a runner who had scored and then deliberately crashed the catcher could be ejected but not (as in Fed's force play slide rule) be called out.

I thought you were involved. For a while there, you got me thinking one of us has to be crazy.

Right in (1), but in (2), if there are other runners, you can call the runner closest to home out for the now-non-runner's interference.

Thanks!
 

Thanks for all the responses. I've been on vacation without internet access.

Good Call!
 

Job well done, Tap.

I would have liked to hear you say that you also called someone else out. :D I think it would have been within your authority... and appropriate punishement for his actions.

I don't like bullies. R1's actions were those of a bully. I probably would have taken the attitude of "Oh you want to be a bully? Well, I'll show you how to be a bully. You're out. You're ejected. That's for your stupid actions. Now the fact that your stupid actions affected the defense, your runner going to 2nd/1st, (you choose what you think was appropriate - looks like you probably felt neither was appropriate) he is also out."

You may have seen in another of my posts that I also don't like coaches that try to defend the wrong actions of their players. A coach that does more than a simple complaint about such a call... I feel is condoning and encouraging the inappropriate, confrontational actions of their players - he gets ejected too.

I have received a few scowls from players that feel they have been out-bullied (if anybody would want to call it that). But I have received significantly more thank-you's and compliments for good game control and preventing fight situations. Get involved early.

These are the times when you, as an umpire, can stop a fight - after tempers are so high that the benches are cleared... is too late. You are no longer in charge and just have to wait it out now. Write down player numbers, I guess, for your report.

Excellent job, Tap. :D

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Sep 8th, 2003 at 05:23 PM]