Odd Call

[isired]

Bases loaded, no out. Batter hits a roller to the pitcher, who throws to F6 covering 2B - bang-bang play, F6 on 2B, R1 slides into bag, R1 called out. Field ump then calls interference in R1, I guess for a hard slide, though directly at the base. F6 never made the throw.

Umpire calls it a double play, AND puts R2 and R3 back to 2B and 3B, no runs scored.

Forget about the initial call, that's judgement, but can they call the BR out AND send the runners back with no runs scored? Never seen that before. Major League rules.

[isired]

Which is good for the game. If people are trying to protect the kids, that is what matters. And it is a teaching moment for kids. Umpires are human. We all will make mistakes. Just like you might not agree on a strike or ball call. But 99% of us take this job seriously. And we are out there to do the best job we can. And we really don't care who wins.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree, my problem with this situation is that we don't know how to instruct the kids to avoid the call - you can't obviously tell a runner on first to just curl up into a ball if there's a groundball hit to an infielder to keep everyone safe - there is a certain amount of risk for injury inherent in the game, the aim is to minimize it.

I think in time these calls will normalize, I think that what I've seen is, with maybe 2 exceptions, not in keeping with the intent of the rule - a more aggressive call in the name of safety, which is understandable at the outset of a new rule of this nature.

[Richvee]

6 minutes ago, isired said:

I totally agree, my problem with this situation is that we don't know how to instruct the kids to avoid the call - you can't obviously tell a runner on first to just curl up into a ball if there's a groundball hit to an infielder to keep everyone safe - there is a certain amount of risk for injury inherent in the game, the aim is to minimize it.

Teach legal slides, and if the play is made at second when they're to far away to slide, the best way to stay away from any call would be to veer off. In this play, if I'm seeing it right, F4 fields the ball well before R1 gets to him. R1 can see F4 flip the ball to F6 standing on 2nd while R1 is still a good 15 feet from 2B. At this point, his best course of action to avoid any call (remove any chance of an umpire to even consider INT, be it right or wrong) would be to veer off. He had nothing to gain by continuing straight at 2b into F4. He was out by 15 feet. It does sound like in this particular play, your runner should not have been called for an infraction, he probably could have removed any thought of INT from the umpires' minds by veering off.

The other lesson is, sometimes calls (maybe even wrong calls) are going to go against you. Those are unfortunate breaks that happen sometimes, as in this play.

So in a nutshell, tell the kid, "Yeah, you probably didn't interfere on that play, but here's what you could have done that would have removed any chance of an INT call.

[isired]

Teach legal slides, and if the play is made at second when they're to far away to slide, the best way to stay away from any call would be to veer off. In this play, if I'm seeing it right, F4 fields the ball well before R1 gets to him. R1 can see F4 flip the ball to F6 standing on 2nd while R1 is still a good 15 feet from 2B.

F4 fielded the ball 15 ft from second and flioped it, R1 was on top of him as the ball reached F6 - so maybe a third of a second. A bobble by F4 or F6, or an errant toss, and R1 is likely safe or close. Both R1 and F4 were 15 ft from 2B. So I thibk I did a bad job of explaining, because the only way R1 could have veered would have been to decide to take a circuitous route to 2B, out of his established baseline, prior to the ball being fielded. I have come to the conclusion based on the discussion here that either I am missing tye whats and tye whys of the call they made, or the crew made a mistake.

The other lesson is, sometimes calls (maybe even wrong calls) are going to go against you. Those are unfortunate breaks that happen sometimes, as in this play.

So in a nutshell, tell the kid, "Yeah, you probably didn't interfere on that play, but here's what you could have done that would have removed any chance of an INT call.

I don't think there's anything he could have done that would have been the right thing to do as a baserunner that had a chance to be safe, though he ended up being out by 15 ft, he was right on top of the fielder, and they got to the spot only a fraction of a second after the fielder - but I do agree that kids have to learn that some calls won't go their way. There was no argument from the kids or coaches, some confusion but it passed quickly. But this was not a close game...

[Richvee]

37 minutes ago, isired said:

F4 fielded the ball 15 ft from second and flioped it, R1 was on top of him as the ball reached F6 - so maybe a third of a second. A bobble by F4 or F6, or an errant toss, and R1 is likely safe or close. Both R1 and F4 were 15 ft from 2B. So I thibk I did a bad job of explaining, because the only way R1 could have veered would have been to decide to take a circuitous route to 2B, out of his established baseline, prior to the ball being fielded. I have come to the conclusion based on the discussion here that either I am missing tye whats and tye whys of the call they made, or the crew made a mistake. I don't think there's anything he could have done that would have been the right thing to do as a baserunner that had a chance to be safe, though he ended up being out by 15 ft, he was right on top of the fielder, and they got to the spot only a fraction of a second after the fielder - but I do agree that kids have to learn that some calls won't go their way. There was no argument from the kids or coaches, some confusion but it passed quickly. But this was not a close game...

I guess this is very much a HTBT situation to say exactly what we think the runner could have/should have done. It still sounds to me that if R1 was that close to F4 just prior to the flip, he should have began an evasive move already. You state a bobble by F4 and he could have been safe. Remember, if F4 bobbled the grounder, and the ball is still within his reach and R1 hinders him at that point, we have clear INT on R1. IOW, R1 is taking a big chance running directly at a fielder in the process of fielding or throwing the ball.

edit- After reading you post again, this sticks out to me

, "though he ended up being out by 15 ft, he was right on top of the fielder, and they got to the spot only a fraction of a second after the fielder

That's looking for trouble as a baserunner. IMO, he should have been taking a step or two to his right to run around and avoid the fielder. Remember the fielder has an absolute right to an unobstructed attempt to field and throw the ball, and like I said, he is protected even if he bobbles the ball in his initial  fielding attempt.

[Magic]

And he doesn't get to establish a baseline as you stated. Because he doesn't have absolute right to the baseline he established. The fielder has absolute right to field any ball and the base runner has to avoid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Teach legal slides, and if the play is made at second when they're to far away to slide, the best way to stay away from any call would be to veer off. In this play, if I'm seeing it right, F4 fields the ball well before R1 gets to him. R1 can see F4 flip the ball to F6 standing on 2nd while R1 is still a good 15 feet from 2B. At this point, his best course of action to avoid any call (remove any chance of an umpire to even consider INT, be it right or wrong) would be to veer off. He had nothing to gain by continuing straight at 2b into F4. He was out by 15 feet. It does sound like in this particular play, your runner should not have been called for an infraction, he probably could have removed any thought of INT from the umpires' minds by veering off.

The other lesson is, sometimes calls (maybe even wrong calls) are going to go against you. Those are unfortunate breaks that happen sometimes, as in this play.

So in a nutshell, tell the kid, "Yeah, you probably didn't interfere on that play, but here's what you could have done that would have removed any chance of an INT call.

This encourages bad baserunning and enables bad umpiring.

[isired]

I guess this is very much a HTBT situation to say exactly what we think the runner could have/should have done. It still sounds to me that if R1 was that close to F4 just prior to the flip, he should have began an evasive move already. You state a bobble by F4 and he could have been safe. Remember, if F4 bobbled the grounder, and the ball is still within his reach and R1 hinders him at that point, we have clear INT on R1. IOW, R1 is taking a big chance running directly at a fielder in the process of fielding or throwing the ball.

edit- After reading you post again, this sticks out to me

, "though he ended up being out by 15 ft, he was right on top of the fielder, and they got to the spot only a fraction of a second after the fielder

That's looking for trouble as a baserunner. IMO, he should have been taking a step or two to his right to run around and avoid the fielder. Remember the fielder has an absolute right to an unobstructed attempt to field and throw the ball, and like I said, he is protected even if he bobbles the ball in his initial  fielding attempt.

You're right there - as they were moving towards the ball and the base, he said he didn't realize they were going to meet at that point - but he could have had better awareness of the possibility, and of the fact that he in all likelihood should have been tagged out and should have been trying to avoid that (we did tell him that). The play was in front of him, after all.

[isired]

And he doesn't get to establish a baseline as you stated. Because he doesn't have absolute right to the baseline he established. The fielder has absolute right to field any ball and the base runner has to avoid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, my bad.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, isired said:

 I have come to the conclusion based on the discussion here that either I am missing tye whats and tye whys of the call they made, or the crew made a mistake.

It's 13U.  that's going to happen.

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

This encourages bad baserunning and enables bad umpiring.

I'm confused. How is learning what a legal slide is and the rules for avoiding a fielder in the process of fielding a batted ball promoting bad baserunning? Enabling bad umpiring? Please elaborate. 

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, isired said:

You're right there - as they were moving towards the ball and the base, he said he didn't realize they were going to meet at that point - but he could have had better awareness of the possibility, and of the fact that he in all likelihood should have been tagged out and should have been trying to avoid that (we did tell him that). The play was in front of him, after all.

I think that's the biggest takeaway for this young man on this play. 

[isired]

I think that's the biggest takeaway for this young man on this play. 

Yes - and admittedly not something we've coached a whole lot - many kids at this level just have that awareness, but certainly not all. It will be discussed next time we're together.

Thanks all, couldn't have hoped to gain more than that!

[Replacematt]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

I'm confused. How is learning what a legal slide is and the rules for avoiding a fielder in the process of fielding a batted ball promoting bad baserunning? Enabling bad umpiring? Please elaborate. 

Because you're putting an undue burden on the baserunner. As you even said, it probably wasn't interference. Telling him he has to do additional actions to make something legal less likely to be called is adding responsibilities where there are none.

[Richvee]

I get your point. However he can be taught about his responsibilities as a baserunner when approaching a fielder fielding a batted ball. If he was indeed so close to F4 that if F4 had bobbled the ball, INT would be the proper call, he should be made aware of that. Use this 13u fall ball incident as A teaching moment so the kid understands what he can and cannot do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[isired]

As a result of the discussion, I think the proper thing for R1 to have done is to track F4 as he's approaching the ball, and shift his course slightly towards CF. Would cost him maybe a step or two, but if F4 bobbles it, he would likely still be safe. And in any event, we would have had 1 out and R1 instead of 2 out with no baserunners.

[isired]

In my view its nothing to be applauded, for two reasons - first, it wasn't a double-play ball. R1 was reaching 2B as the ball was, the BR was through the bag a step later. If R1 decided to atop and sit in the basepath midway between 1B and 2B, F6 still wouldnt have attempted a throw to first. So to put the BR in jeopardy for a call that you're going out of your way to make is a showboat move, an umpire trying to be bigger than the game. The plate ump.was shocked, but of couemrse would not overrule the filed umps judgement.

Second, there's contact like this on every single double play attempt that is remotely close. There is nothing that R2 could do differently. It was a bang-bang play, no chance to stop - so you're giving the D an out (BR) they would never have gotten, all because F6 fell down. You'll turn this into soccer, with all the flops.

[isired]

If that's the case, I applaud the young umpire for making the call. Maybe it was a legal slide, but the kid saw contact and F6 falling down, and he had the gumption to make the tough, unpopular call in a big situation.

Oh, it was quite popular on the other side. Went from bases loaded, no out in a 1 run game withbthe 4 hitter up to 2nd & 3rd, 2 out, no runs in. They couldn't believe their good fortune. Should have had the 5 hitter coming up with 1st and 3rd, tie game, 1 out.

[Rich Ives]

26 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Did R1 maintain contact with second, did he initiate the slide so that his buttocks hit the ground well before the base, etc, if there was any action that could have made it a non-bonafide slide..... Well there ya go

OBR - most of the FED BS isn't there.