Bat Interferece Call

[Mr Umpire]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call.IN a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to sell it. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

The problem is with an explanation like that, a myth is being perpetuated. It may have stopped him but for the wrong reason. The better, more appropriate response would have been the batter did nothing to interfere and F2 tried to make the batter interfere. Whether it stopped him or not is beside the point. The response would have been better supported by the rules if a protest is filed and the coach would know better if one of his batter's, while still in the box, gets called out for INT. At least, he would know his argument of "both feet in the box" is not a valid one even if he tried to pull it out of his a$.

Now, it is a headache waiting for another umpire.

Now you're talking about judgment, as in who initiated the contact, which, of course, is non-protestable. In this case, "both feet in the box" is a very important ingredient. If I were to use your response, which is also valid, that issue is now debatable, according to the defensive coach. Chances are pretty good that the result is a prolonged discussion as to who the offender is

Yeah, but you're talking about a myth. Again, it doesn't matter how long it takes to discuss it. It matters if a coach decides to protest or not. In mine, he can't. In yours, he can b/c the rule says nothing about being immune if in the box. I just wonder what would you say if he didn't stop there with the myth and knows better. Now, you look worse and what is your backpedaling move? Now, will you blame the catcher? It will look like you are grasping at straws now when it would have been easier to say what the catcher did in the first place.

[mstaylor]

If he had said that the batter was in the box, didn't lean and that the catcher inititiated the contact then all is good.

[plateumpire29]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call.IN a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to sell it. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

The problem is with an explanation like that, a myth is being perpetuated. It may have stopped him but for the wrong reason. The better, more appropriate response would have been the batter did nothing to interfere and F2 tried to make the batter interfere. Whether it stopped him or not is beside the point. The response would have been better supported by the rules if a protest is filed and the coach would know better if one of his batter's, while still in the box, gets called out for INT. At least, he would know his argument of "both feet in the box" is not a valid one even if he tried to pull it out of his a$.

Now, it is a headache waiting for another umpire.

Now you're talking about judgment, as in who initiated the contact, which, of course, is non-protestable. In this case, "both feet in the box" is a very important ingredient. If I were to use your response, which is also valid, that issue is now debatable, according to the defensive coach. Chances are pretty good that the result is a prolonged discussion as to who the offender is

Yeah, but you're talking about a myth. Again, it doesn't matter how long it takes to discuss it. It matters if a coach decides to protest or not. In mine, he can't. In yours, he can b/c the rule says nothing about being immune if in the box. I just wonder what would you say if he didn't stop there with the myth and knows better. Now, you look worse and what is your backpedaling move? Now, will you blame the catcher? It will look like you are grasping at straws now when it would have been easier to say what the catcher did in the first place.

If, instead of going back to his dugout without another word, the coach had asked about the contact, I certainly would have told him that the catcher initiated it. In general, when someone asks me about a play that happened in the past, I politely tell the person that I really can't render an opinion since I didn't see it. I would cite the rule as it might apply, but, since I didn't see exactly what happened, couldn't give a definitive opinion. That coach, who had 40 years in at that college, wasn't going to embarrass himself by arguing when his catcher was so obviously in the wrong.

[Mr Umpire]

Yeah, but you're talking about a myth. Again, it doesn't matter how long it takes to discuss it. It matters if a coach decides to protest or not. In mine, he can't. In yours, he can b/c the rule says nothing about being immune if in the box. I just wonder what would you say if he didn't stop there with the myth and knows better. Now, you look worse and what is your backpedaling move? Now, will you blame the catcher? It will look like you are grasping at straws now when it would have been easier to say what the catcher did in the first place.

If, instead of going back to his dugout without another word, the coach had asked about the contact, I certainly would have told him that the catcher initiated it. In general, when someone asks me about a play that happened in the past, I politely tell the person that I really can't render an opinion since I didn't see it. I would cite the rule as it might apply, but, since I didn't see exactly what happened, couldn't give a definitive opinion. That coach, who had 40 years in at that college, wasn't going to embarrass himself by arguing when his catcher was so obviously in the wrong.

After this, I am done. Perpetuate as many myths as you want. I will learn to quit trying to improve overall umpiring and let others make up as much as they want. But, it doesn't matter if I saw it or not. YOU said you made up a rule and told the coach a myth to shut him up. I don't have to be there to render an opinion about YOU making rules up. But, as I said, I am dropping this and you can continue to make up as many rules as you want to. I'm done with trying to get too many to quit making things up and actually umpire by the rules. Forget it. Every response shows you will not stop perpetuating myths and making things up. So, go ahead. I'm not getting worked up over this as I have in the past. You came to a forum to "brag" about how you stopped a coach with a myth and don't want to see the error it caused. At this point, whatever. Keep causing problems for other umpires.

[mazzamouth]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call.IN a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to sell it. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

The problem is with an explanation like that, a myth is being perpetuated. It may have stopped him but for the wrong reason. The better, more appropriate response would have been the batter did nothing to interfere and F2 tried to make the batter interfere. Whether it stopped him or not is beside the point. The response would have been better supported by the rules if a protest is filed and the coach would know better if one of his batter's, while still in the box, gets called out for INT. At least, he would know his argument of "both feet in the box" is not a valid one even if he tried to pull it out of his a$.

Now, it is a headache waiting for another umpire.

Now you're talking about judgment, as in who initiated the contact, which, of course, is non-protestable. In this case, "both feet in the box" is a very important ingredient. If I were to use your response, which is also valid, that issue is now debatable, according to the defensive coach. Chances are pretty good that the result is a prolonged discussion as to who the offender is

Both feet in the box have nothing to do with anything..the box is not a safe heaven for the batter..