Catcher's obstruction

[illump]

We play in a 10U league (one-man umpire) that uses NFHS rules.  I don't know Fed rules nor have a Fed rule book.  

I tried to look up catcher's interference for Fed games online, but I think it is called catcher's obstruction for this level.  Not 100% sure, though.

Situation:

R3, no outs.

Batter swings and makes contact with catcher's glove, ball goes to RF for a base hit.  R3 scores.

Umpire rules catcher's interference, so he puts R3 back at third and awards BR first base.  R3 was not trying to steal.  Final ruling.

I tell one of our coaches that this is not correct, because we should have the opportunity to take the result of the play or the enforcement of the CI/CB, whichever benefits us more.  Umpire was adamant that the award is BR to first and move R3 back to third.  In my overzealousness, I tried to get our coach to appeal to the umpire about the incorrect ruling, but the umpire would not have anything to do with the coach.  I thought I was right, but since the UIC was very vocal about him being right, I started to question myself.  Maybe Fed CI/CB is different than OBR.  Please tell me whether I'm right or wrong.  

-Illump

[LRZ]

From the on-line 2015 NFHS book, Rule 8-1-1(e):  A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when . . . the catcher or any other defensive player obstructs him. The coach or captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the umpire-in-chief of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play. Such election shall be made before the next pitch (legal or illegal), before the award of an intentional base on balls, or before the infielders leave the diamond. Obstruction of the batter is ignored if the batter-runner reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base.

Rule 8-1-1(e)(1): Any runner attempting to advance (i.e., steal or squeeze) on a catcher’s obstruction of the batter shall be awarded the base he is attempting. If a runner is not attempting to advance on the catcher’s obstruction, he shall not be entitled to the next base, if not forced to advance because of the batter being awarded first base. If obstruction is enforced, all other runners on the play will return to base occupied at time of the pitch. The batter is awarded first base, if he did not reach base.

Rule 8-1-1(e)(2): If obstruction is not enforced, all other runners advance at their own risk.

Caveat: I don't work Fed, nor do I have a more current NFHS rule book at hand.

[maven]

That's the rule, and it's substantially the same as the pro rule. FED umpires should bring the option to the coach, and not wait for him to mention it (as pro umpires should do).

The UIC in the OP had the right rule (CO) and the right penalty (award BR 1B, stealing runners their advance bases, and other runners stay put), but failed to remember (a) that the offense has an option with CO, and (b) that the penalty lapses when all runners reach their advance bases.

Remember either (a) or (b) would have prevented the F-up. Plus the guy sounds like a

[beerguy55]

The ump was wrong on all fronts.

If all runners advance one base the CI is ignored.   The ump's ruling would be right if someone didn't advance.

And, if CI is enforced, the coach has the option to take the result of the play.

Your coach should be filing a protest at that moment - if for no other reason than to get the umpire educated.

[Jimurray]

Just now, maven said:

That's the rule, and it's substantially the same as the pro rule. FED umpires should bring the option to the coach, and not wait for him to mention it (as pro umpires should do).

The UIC in the OP had the right rule (CO) and the right penalty (award BR 1B, stealing runners their advance bases, and other runners stay put), but failed to remember (a) that the offense has an option with CO, and (b) that the penalty lapses when all runners reach their advance bases.

Remember either (a) or (b) would have prevented the F-up. Plus the guy sounds like a

There was no option to give. CO/CI is ignored if the batter and all runners advanced 1 base:

"e. the catcher or any other defensive player obstructs him. The coach or ­captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the umpire-in-chief of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play. Such election shall be made before the next pitch (legal or illegal), before the award of an intentional base on balls, or before the infielders leave the diamond. Obstruction of the ­batter is ignored if the batter-runner reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base."

[illump]

Thank you all for your timely input.  I am glad that I didn't give the coach bad advice.  Maven, your pic was very apropos for our UIC.  This misapplication was one of his "finer" moments, including talking on a cell phone during live action, which I think is a little -y.  We all have had bad days, but I think this went above and beyond that.

[johnnyg08]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing

[Richvee]

On 6/20/2019 at 12:46 PM, illump said:

Thank you all for your timely input.  I am glad that I didn't give the coach bad advice.  Maven, your pic was very apropos for our UIC.  This misapplication was one of his "finer" moments, including talking on a cell phone during live action, which I think is a little -y.  We all have had bad days, but I think this went above and beyond that.

Whoa... solo umpire on the phone during a live ball???   something tells me we’ve got one of those guys with multi years experience ..... one year experience multiple times. 

[JSam21]

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:06 AM, beerguy55 said:

The ump was wrong on all fronts.

If all runners advance one base the CI is ignored.   The ump's ruling would be right if someone didn't advance.

And, if CI is enforced, the coach has the option to take the result of the play.

Your coach should be filing a protest at that moment - if for no other reason than to get the umpire educated.

I have and will always say, the protest is the most under utilized tool that coaches have. 

[MadMax]

6 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

I have and will always say, the protest is the most under utilized tool that coaches have. 

Aptly said. We umpires bristle and are all scared of the P-word. However, know the best way to avoid a Protest? Know the frakkin’ Rules, and quit making sh!t up!!

 

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

I have and will always say, the protest is the most under utilized tool that coaches have. 

Don't say that too loudly, or coaches will be using the word for anything that goes against them.

I'd rather quality over quantity when it comes to coaches using it.

[lawump]

On 6/20/2019 at 12:04 PM, maven said:

 FED umpires should bring the option to the coach, and not wait for him to mention it (as pro umpires should do).

 

You are 100% correct (as you know).  We (at my urging) specifically put this in the FED umpire manual in 2016 because I had, had long debates about this with umpires across the country throughout my FED career.  I told my fellow committee members that I didn't really care which way it was resolved, but that we definitely needed to provide guidance to umpires.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, yawetag said:

Don't say that too loudly, or coaches will be using the word for anything that goes against them.

I'd rather quality over quantity when it comes to coaches using it.

Most coaches know they can protest and most of them rarely/never use it even when there aren't rules and processes that discourage protests.

I've seen the rules with fees, waiting periods and other hurdles to discourage protests because they're afraid of frivolous protests, but in my experience those fears are unfounded - I've coached and watched hundreds of games in tournament format where there was absolutely no obstacle to filing a protest...and have run 30 team tournaments as a TD...I can count the number of protests filed in all those tournaments on one hand.

I think that quantity can go up a bit, even if some of them are outright dumb.

[maven]

4 hours ago, lawump said:

You are 100% correct (as you know).  We (at my urging) specifically put this in the FED umpire manual in 2016 because I had, had long debates about this with umpires across the country throughout my FED career.  I told my fellow committee members that I didn't really care which way it was resolved, but that we definitely needed to provide guidance to umpires.

Ohio has its own manual now, so I have not seen the FED manual (they don't even send it out anymore). But I'm glad that you prevailed: the pro mechanic is not suitable for HS varsity, much less sub-varsity and non-scholastic ball played under FED rules.

I suspect that the pro mechanic might create more problems than it solves, but I lack standing (to use the legal phrase) to have an official opinion about it.

[Bob M]

On 6/20/2019 at 12:04 PM, maven said:

That's the rule, and it's substantially the same as the pro rule. FED umpires should bring the option to the coach, and not wait for him to mention it (as pro umpires should do).

The UIC in the OP had the right rule (CO) and the right penalty (award BR 1B, stealing runners their advance bases, and other runners stay put), but failed to remember (a) that the offense has an option with CO, and (b) that the penalty lapses when all runners reach their advance bases.

Remember either (a) or (b) would have prevented the F-up. Plus the guy sounds like a

Can someone point out to me where it says that, in FED, umpires should bring this option to the manager's attention?  Far as I've ever known, it's up to the manager to know his option here.  I'm making a new umpire curriculum for my high school board and this came up in conversation.  A longtime high school umpire I really respect is adamant the high school procedure is different. If that's what it is, I'd like to read it somewhere.  I can't find it in the BRD or the FED rules or case books.

Thanks

[Velho]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:23 AM, LRZ said:

The coach or captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the umpire-in-chief of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play.

@Bob M Assuming the above from the Fed is still accurate (see LRZ post for rule section), that language covers it. The team at bat SHALL indicate whether or not to decline. “Offensive Coach, the catcher obstructed your batter. You want the penalty or the result of the play?”. Saying that they HAVE TO pick but you can’t tell them what the choices are is plain silly. It’s certainly not scholastic umpiring.

@lawump obviously has the most standing, but that’s my read.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Bob M said:

Can someone point out to me where it says that, in FED, umpires should bring this option to the manager's attention?  Far as I've ever known, it's up to the manager to know his option here.  I'm making a new umpire curriculum for my high school board and this came up in conversation.  A longtime high school umpire I really respect is adamant the high school procedure is different. If that's what it is, I'd like to read it somewhere.  I can't find it in the BRD or the FED rules or case books.

Thanks

I was in remiss of not citing where my “e” cite came from. Others are remiss in not perusing the whole thread and noting the FED cite “e” which I didn’t fully cite. Even without cites I’m pretty sure amateur umpires  should ask coaches if they want the penalty or the play and I’m surprised you can’t find that in the BRD. I’m also surprised that some think the coach should be given a choice in the OP in that the CI/CO  should have been ignored. That would be the protest. 

[Senor Azul]

For pro ball there is definitely written instructions not to offer the options (see 2013 Wendelstedt manual p. 132 and 2021 MiLBUM p. 105). I cannot find any guidance telling umpires to offer the options to the coach in high school ball.

There may not be any guidance for this situation at the amateur level but there is a recommendation from Carl Childress and a couple of his friends (in his 2016 BRD, p. 204 Note 282):

“Both JEA (6:64) and HW (2013 Wendelstedt RIM, p. 132) indicate the correct procedure is for the umpire to enforce the penalty for catcher interference, willy-nilly. Then, if the offensive coach requests the option, the ruling will be changed. I believe that’s wrong for amateur umpires, and I am joined in that assessment by senior NCAA Division I umpires Jon Bible and Ken Allen. Simply:  When an option exists, offer it to the coach.”

In addition, earlier in this thread lawump posted on 6/24/19 the following—

We (at my urging) specifically put this in the FED umpire manual in 2016 because I had, had long debates about this with umpires across the country throughout my FED career.  I told my fellow committee members that I didn't really care which way it was resolved, but that we definitely needed to provide guidance to umpires.

Unfortunately he did not quote what actually made it into the umpire manual that year--perhaps now he can. In case you did not know it, our contributing member lawump actually served on the NFHS rules committee (I think it was 2015-2019).

[maven]

Pro ball and amateur ball are different games and need to be officiated differently.

I seem to recall reading this guidance in the BRD. I apply it in all amateur games, regardless of code.

[Bob M]

Thank you. Much appreciated

I wasn't saying I disagree. It makes sense at that level to offer the option. I was just looking to be pointed in the right direction for the high school reference. I'd been trained differently (MiLBUM 6.15 "It is (the manager's) responsibility to take the initiative and advise the umpire of his decision"), and couldn't find a specific citation for FED that says otherwise.  

I did see lawump's post in this thread.  That's why I revived this thread and asked my question here.

[maven]

I found Carl's note (Note 275, 2015 BRD §306, p. 198):

Quote

Mechanics are not often a subject for the BRD. This is an exception. Both Evans (JEA 6:64) and Wendelstedt (WRIM/§8.1.1) indicate the correct procedure is for the umpire to enforce the penalty for catcher interference, willy-nilly [sic]. Then, if the offensive coach requests the option, the ruling will be changed. I believe that's wrong for amateur umpires, and I am joined in that assessment by senior NCAA Division I umpires Jon Bible and Ken Allen. Simply: When an option exists, offer it to the coach. 

As you can see, this is hardly authoritative. Yet, it is 100% correct, both in practice and in philosophy, and about both pro and amateur ball.

[noumpere]

I always offered it -- "Coach -- play or penalty?"  I did NOT discuss what the penalty was or opine which would be "better."

[Bob M]

Excellent.  Guess I missed it in the BRD. I see it now. Thanks again

[lawump]

I was on the Umpires Manual sub-committee.  I know that we proposed, and it was approved by the full rules committee, to put a comment in the Manual that umpires should ask the coach whether they want to take the result of the play or the penalty.  (I am positive this happened as I remember the discussion in the room...and there was very little disagreement with this philosophy (for the high school game)).  

With that said, it appears that it was not published in the umpire's manual. (This is not the only example of this happening...something being approved for publication (such as a case play or umpire manual edit) but being missed.  It is an innocent mistake.)  I am going to work to bring that to the Board's attention to see if they can add it to the next Umpire's Manual.  I can assure everyone that it was 11-0 in the room for umpires to bring it to the coach's attention.

Sorry for the slow reply.  Been under the weather for the last three weeks.  (Non-Covid!)