Umpire Interference

[Cav]

I noted a subtle change in umpire interference this year.  

Whereas it has been (as long as I can remember) an inadvertent act (movement) by the plate umpire that he judged to cause F2 to misplay or to not play, now I no longer see the umpire's inadvertent act as a criteria, but F2's act to get a judgement of umpire interference.  

Here (with my emphasis) is the 2017 rulebook definition and supporting case play which reflects no change from years prior::

2-21-2  It is umpire interference when he [the plate umpire] inadvertently moves so as to ­hinder a catcher's attempt to throw, or when a fair ball touches an umpire...

2.21.2 SITUATION: With R1 on second base, the umpire inadvertently interferes with catcher’s throw back to F1 and R1 advances to third base.  RULING: If, in the umpire’s judgment, his interference permitted R1 to reach third base safely, the umpire shall send R1 back to second base. (5-1-2c)

This year's rulebook calls its reader's attention to a new "clarification" of the rule at "2017 Baseball Rules Changes" wherein it reads:

8-3-6 Clarified when an umpire hinders the actions of the catcher in a defensive attempt and how baserunning awards are administered.

So, turning to that rule's new wording and supporting case play, I noted the "clarification" and supporting case play (below, again, with my emphasis) which seemingly eliminates the "inadvertent" act by the plate umpire:

(2017 Change) 8-3-6  When a plate umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher’s throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pickoff play, if an out is not made at the end of the catcher’s initial throw, the ball shall be dead and all runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference.

(2017 Change) *8.3.6 SITUATION: R1 is on first base and attempts to steal second base. On the catcher’s throw, contact with the plate umpire hinders his attempt to retire R1.  RULING: If R1 is not retired at the end of the catcher’s initial throw, the ball is dead and he shall return to first base.

Further, the "Baseball Rules Interpretations - 2017" sheet calls F2's act of simple arm movement and contact with the plate umpire to warrant an umpire interference call.     

SITUATION 11: On the first pitch of the at-bat, the runner on first base attempts to steal second base. The catcher brings his arm back to throw and makes contact with the plate umpire. The catcher (a) continues his throw but because of the contact throws the ball into center field, or (b) makes no throw as he dropped the ball. The runner arrives safely at second base. RULING: In both instances, this is umpire interference. The runner will be returned to first base. (8-3-6)

This direction of the "clarified" rule, supporting case play and interpretation all bodes ill for F2's malfeasance.  Are these the lessons NFHS sports wishes to instill in the sensitive and susceptible youth participating in the great game of baseball?       

 

 

[LittleBlue]

Are you saying that the change in wording is going to make it more likely that F2 brings his arm all the way back when there is no chance to retire a runner to draw an umpire INT call so the runner gets sent back? Are your further saying that the change in wording is going to essentially corrupt the minds of the youth F2's and teach them that it's better to draw a call than to play fairly? If that is what you're saying I think it's a bit of a stretch because the way I read the rules is that the clarification is that the umpire no longer has to "move" and he can hinder the catcher in anything he does. What that means is that the umpire can do anything to hinder the catcher (such as set up too close), not just inadvertently move. That being said, if the catcher tries to draw an INT call there is no way I'm giving it to him if I know he did it intentionally. If that's not what you're getting at can you please clarify.

[maineump]

I don't see that this clarification changes anything. UI is UI. I don't foresee a catcher doing anything different or umpires doing anything different.

As we always have as plate umpires - we need to see (or hear) the big picture, especially when the runner is going. Usually after calling the pitch, a quick motion from the umpire can prevent UI. I use the super-slot and have never had to call it. Generally speaking, just standing up straight prevents the interference.

 

[LittleBlue]

To go with what @maineump said, when standing up after calling a pitch, I usually step back with my front foot and that creates the separation from me and F2.

[Cav]

15 hours ago, LittleBlue said:

Are you saying that the change in wording is going to make it more likely that F2 brings his arm all the way back when there is no chance to retire a runner to draw an umpire INT call so the runner gets sent back? Are your further saying that the change in wording is going to essentially corrupt the minds of the youth F2's and teach them that it's better to draw a call than to play fairly? If that is what you're saying I think it's a bit of a stretch because the way I read the rules is that the clarification is that the umpire no longer has to "move" and he can hinder the catcher in anything he does. What that means is that the umpire can do anything to hinder the catcher (such as set up too close), not just inadvertently move. That being said, if the catcher tries to draw an INT call there is no way I'm giving it to him if I know he did it intentionally. If that's not what you're getting at can you please clarify.

No, I'm saying umpire interference is now to be judged without the plate umpire doing anything as was required in the past...and still is by definition and one case play. 

No, a change of wording in some NFHS publications that are seldom, if ever, seen by youth F2s is not going to corrupt their minds or teach them much of anything.  I'll leave that task to their parents and coaches.

Good luck this season.

 

 

.

[alex7]

16 hours ago, LittleBlue said:

To go with what @maineump said, when standing up after calling a pitch, I usually step back with my front foot and that creates the separation from me and F2.

@maineump @LittleBlue Just a take-it-or-leave-it .02, but if at the HS level you're standing up after a pitch (or even just taking one step) so quickly that on a steal the catcher's arm still hasn't come back for the throw, you may not be looking the pitch all the way in - your timing may be too quick.

[grayhawk]

The only real change here is that it narrows the definition of UI to an umpire interfering with a catcher's throw on pickoffs and attempts to retire a stealing runner.  The way the rule read before, some might have applied UI in a situation where the umpire got in the way of a catcher's toss to a covering pitcher, or on a catcher's throw during a continuing action play on a batted ball.  Nothing has changed in terms of what the umpire does or doesn't do to actually interfere with the catcher's throw.

[maineump]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 0:58 PM, alex7 said:

@maineump @LittleBlue Just a take-it-or-leave-it .02, but if at the HS level you're standing up after a pitch (or even just taking one step) so quickly that on a steal the catcher's arm still hasn't come back for the throw, you may not be looking the pitch all the way in - your timing may be too quick.

I have never had to stand up to prevent UI, but was just saying that it something that could be used. The best way to avoid being hit, is to be in the right place.

[beerguy55]

I think changing the wording removes an ugly implication.

If umpire interference required an "inadvertent" act, it implies that on occasion an umpire might intentionally interfere with the catcher.   And that there's no remedy for it.

In essence, having "inadvertent" in there is redundant.

Players can and will inadvertently, and purposefully, interfere with each other.   An umpire will never purposefully interfere with the play...unless he's Leslie Nielsen.

"It's Enrico Palazzo!"

[Cav]

I don't think the adjective "inadvertent"* reflects negatively on the umpire.  But, I do think that the plate umpire and not the catcher must do something to cause the interference.  In the past, the umpire had to move to cause the interference.  Now there is an interpretation wherein the catcher's movement can draw a call.   

 

*Definition: not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Cav said:

I don't think the adjective "inadvertent"* reflects negatively on the umpire.  But, I do think that the plate umpire and not the catcher must do something to cause the interference.  In the past, the umpire had to move to cause the interference.  Now there is an interpretation wherein the catcher's movement can draw a call.   

 

*Definition: not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning.

It doesn't - the opposite does.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if you have a provision for an umpire inadvertently interfering with a catcher, there must be a provision for an umpire deliberately interfering with a catcher.  Because umpires don't deliberately interfere with players, the word is redundant.  (and if the mob has got hold of some umpire in a point shaving scheme, OBR is not going to solve that problem)

 

OR, if you just take "inadvertently moves" literally - that means that the umpire fell or tripped or lost his balance, rather than moving exactly where and how he wanted to move...and that doesn't capture the spirit or intent of the rule...as opposed to "moves and inadvertently hinders..."

 

If they want umpire movement to be a requirement of interference, the language fix is simple..." It is umpire interference when he [the plate umpire] , as a result of moving or changing position, ­hinders a catcher's attempt to throw, or when a fair ball touches an umpire.. "

 

[Cav]

The criteria for umpire interference has been the umpire doing something (an act), as in rule 2-21-2.  That criteria is missing from the rule at 8-3-6.  2017 NFHS Interpretation 11 now warrants a call even when if the umpire does nothing.  

The rulebook protects the offense from causing interference more so than they do the plate umpire when the defense is attempting a play.  A batter can remain in place and not be judged to have interfered during similar plays.