Would you EJ?

[catoblue]

OK, coaches hat on my head for this one...

Last night, LL majors game: For starters, I had an idea on what we had for umpires right from the plate conference: BIG deer-in-the-headlights look when they mentioned DBT and I said "2 from the field and 1 from the mound, right?":jerkit:

Bottom of 1st 0 outs, R1 (This kid is about 5'10" and 200 lbs).

Ground ball to F5, who scoops it and throws to F4. R1 slides into 2B with cleats 3 feet in the air, hits F4 in the glove arm with cleats and ball gets dropped - F4's arm is bleeding from cleat marks. By the way, this was clearly intentional to break up the DP.

Now, were I calling this game, R1 is gone. The bozos that were calling the game, however, did nothing about it until at the half inning I called BU aside and said I'm concerned that he didn't at minimum, issue a warning - which he promptly did.

Anyone else here that would have punched this kid's ticket for going in to 2B with the cleats into F4's arm? (remember this is LL!)

Next play, grounder to 4'6" F6, the un-ejected (big-boy) R2, runs straight line towards 3B, keeping F6 from fielding the ball - here I have INT since F6 had to to choose: stop or get splattered! No call from the umpires, but it gets even better...

Ball gets past F6, F7 is charging and bare hands the ball to throw to F5, who is standing just behind 3B, Before the throw gets there, R2 shoves F5 out of the way and heads home to score!!!!! Again no calls by the crew.

Absolutely clueless!!! Oh yeah, the BU would line up right behind F1 (infield) with runners on - on a 60' diamond!?!

My only thought by the end of the game was "...and they PAY for umpires like this?!" We play in a multi-community league, where ours is the only one that doesn't pay - I'll take our volunteers over these clowns any day!

[TommyUmp]

Nice rant...

[mstaylor]

Just an aside, you say Majors, what is the player doing wearing metal cleats? I don't disagree with your problems, but LL doesn't allow metal below 13.

[someoneinca]

Just an aside, you say Majors, what is the player doing wearing metal cleats? I don't disagree with your problems, but LL doesn't allow metal below 13.

^Good point.

In response to the OP, I would have EJ R1 in that situation for unsportsmanlike/malicous conduct

[scobes7]

^Good point.

In response to the OP, I would have EJ R1 in that situation for unsportsmanlike/malicous conduct

I also would have banged out the batter/runner because of the interference

[catoblue]

Just an aside, you say Majors, what is the player doing wearing metal cleats? I don't disagree with your problems, but LL doesn't allow metal below 13.

Molded cleats, he came in so hard that it cut F4's arm

[Tyennie]

My initial thought as I read the OP's This is a kid that uses his size to intimidate the smaller players. I will bet his dad is one of the bleacher creatures that thinks this is good baseball. First example - R1 is gone, BR is out on for R1 int. the second one, R2 out for int. if that wasn't enough Ej'd for the malicious contact on F5. If I were F5's parent I would take this one to the BOD also. This kid needs some bench time to learn the finer points of the game. What the flip is going to happen when he moves up to the next level(s) and there are actual umpires? :wow:

[mstaylor]

That is odd. Yes, he should have been tossed for the slide.

[LLWS#32]

As the play at second was described in the OP you may be able to EJ for unsportsmanlike conduct(HTBT) but you can't get an out on double play breakup. There is no FED type rule in LL regarding this type of play. Going to have to call it an "illegal slide" maybe. Ruling double play breakup here is going to cause a protestable situation on grounds of a wrong rule interp. Had this exact situation in a LL Regional I did in '05 at the old facility in outside of St. Pete. U2 on my crew ruled double play breakup and we were real lucky the manager from Alabama didn't protest because we would have ended up with the proverbial egg on our face!

Not sure how you can get interference on the play to F6 either.

A-did the runner contact F6 in the act of making a play? B. did the batted ball hit the runner? Without A or B you are going to have a real hard time selling interference.

Again HTBT but F6 is going to have to step up and field the ball here.

[BrianC14]

My initial thought as I read the OP's This is a kid that uses his size to intimidate the smaller players. I will bet his dad is one of the bleacher creatures that thinks this is good baseball. First example - R1 is gone, BR is out on for R1 int. the second one, R2 out for int. if that wasn't enough Ej'd for the malicious contact on F5. If I were F5's parent I would take this one to the BOD also. This kid needs some bench time to learn the finer points of the game. What the flip is going to happen when he moves up to the next level(s) and there are actual umpires?

I'll be right there waiting. :clap:

[BrianC14]

As the play at second was described in the OP you may be able to EJ for unsportsmanlike conduct(HTBT) but you can't get an out on double play breakup. There is no FED type rule in LL regarding this type of play. Going to have to call it an "illegal slide" maybe. Ruling double play breakup here is going to cause a protestable situation on grounds of a wrong rule interp. Had this exact situation in a LL Regional I did in '05 at the old facility in outside of St. Pete. U2 on my crew ruled double play breakup and we were real lucky the manager from Alabama didn't protest because we would have ended up with the proverbial egg on our face!

Not sure how you can get interference on the play to F6 either.

A-did the runner contact F6 in the act of making a play? B. did the batted ball hit the runner? Without A or B you are going to have a real hard time selling interference.

Again HTBT but F6 is going to have to step up and field the ball here.

Agreed. Without contact, I can't see making an INT call.

[Mr Umpire]

My initial thought as I read the OP's This is a kid that uses his size to intimidate the smaller players. I will bet his dad is one of the bleacher creatures that thinks this is good baseball. First example - R1 is gone, BR is out on for R1 int. the second one, R2 out for int. if that wasn't enough Ej'd for the malicious contact on F5. If I were F5's parent I would take this one to the BOD also. This kid needs some bench time to learn the finer points of the game. What the flip is going to happen when he moves up to the next level(s) and there are actual umpires?

Forget actual umpires. Wait until he gets to ACTUAL players. By the time he is done after a game like this, his ribs will be black n' blue from the baseballs bouncing off them. If he doesn't learn now, when these kids catch up to his size, he is going to learn then.

[umpire148]

Just an aside, you say Majors, what is the player doing wearing metal cleats? I don't disagree with your problems, but LL doesn't allow metal below 13.

In Malaysia, we don't allow kids in LL, HS to ware metal for the safety reasons.

As for me, I would EJ the 1st situation at 2ND base for unsportmanship..

:clap:

[catoblue]

As the play at second was described in the OP you may be able to EJ for unsportsmanlike conduct(HTBT) but you can't get an out on double play breakup. There is no FED type rule in LL regarding this type of play. Going to have to call it an "illegal slide" maybe. Ruling double play breakup here is going to cause a protestable situation on grounds of a wrong rule interp. Had this exact situation in a LL Regional I did in '05 at the old facility in outside of St. Pete. U2 on my crew ruled double play breakup and we were real lucky the manager from Alabama didn't protest because we would have ended up with the proverbial egg on our face!

I wouldn't have had an out on this one, but I would have had an EJ.

Not sure how you can get interference on the play to F6 either.

A-did the runner contact F6 in the act of making a play? B. did the batted ball hit the runner? Without A or B you are going to have a real hard time selling interference.

Again HTBT but F6 is going to have to step up and field the ball here.

I would have had the INT because it was obvious that he was using his size to basically chase F6 off the ball - the fielder has the right of way in fielding a batted ball. The little F6 had 2 choices: continue charging the ball and get run over by a kid twice his size, or stop and be screened by Baby Hewey.

[Tyennie]

BrianC14 et al.... Yup no int with R2 and F6....

My int call would be for the MC on F5 at third base, followed by the old heave-ho. What coach or parent would actually condone this kind of behavior?:wow:

[BrianC14]

I wouldn't have had an out on this one, but I would have had an EJ.

I would have had the INT because it was obvious that he was using his size to basically chase F6 off the ball - the fielder has the right of way in fielding a batted ball. The little F6 had 2 choices: continue charging the ball and get run over by a kid twice his size, or stop and be screened by Baby Hewey.

So we're going to penalize all the bigger kids who happen to be in front of a fielder as a ball is hit toward them?

That's not INT, cato. Screening isn't INT, either.

[catoblue]

So we're going to penalize all the bigger kids who happen to be in front of a fielder as a ball is hit toward them?

That's not INT, cato. Screening isn't INT, either.

HTBT - I can't quite come up with the right way to describe it, but if you saw it, I think you'd have INT and could reference 7.08( and 7.11

[LLWS#32]

Cato:

How are you planning on explaining to the manager who just had the runner called out on interfering with the SS. Are you actually going to say "he was using his size to intimidate." If you do that then you are making up a rule and sorry, 901C doesn't allow that. Any experienced LL manager now has a protest.

[LLWS#32]

Just noticed something else....toward the end of the OP the runner in question is advancing to third..."just before the ball" arrives there is contact between the runner and F5...sounds like obstruction to me-F5 is in the way without the ball!

[HokieUmp]

Just noticed something else....toward the end of the OP the runner in question is advancing to third..."just before the ball" arrives there is contact between the runner and F5...sounds like obstruction to me-F5 is in the way without the ball!

Define "in the way." The way I read it, F5 is standing 'over' the bag, waiting on the throw, and Big Lummox comes in and shoves him out of the way.

Sorry, but if F5 is straddling the bag and waiting on the throw, he's not obstructing. It's still INT by B. Lummox.

[LLWS#32]

If you are from the HR's area (a LL hotbed) then you know that in LL--major rule emphasis several years ago--that the defensive player without actual ball possession must give access to the base--waiting on the ball to arrive does not count as possession and obstruction could be called here. Of course if the runner went out of his way to shove F5 (as opposed to simply running into him) you could certainly get an EJ after the dust has settled.

[catoblue]

Just noticed something else....toward the end of the OP the runner in question is advancing to third..."just before the ball" arrives there is contact between the runner and F5...sounds like obstruction to me-F5 is in the way without the ball!

If you read the OP, it says standing behind 3B as in: outfield side of the base - not obstructing in any way - big-boy just felt like demonstrating his size and seems to enjoy getting physical with kids half his size..

As for the INT on F6, again, you HTBT to really get why I'd have had INT, but I'll try to get into enough detail to give you the picture.

First-off, this was two pitches after he pulled the high cleats stunt and didn't even get a warning.

Secondly, he takes off toward 3B, sees the ball, looks at F6 coming in on it, grunts and finds a little extra gas and lowers his shoulders to run the kid over. The fact that F6 decided to put on the brakes rather than get steam-rolled just means that F6 took away yet another opportunity for R2 to get himself ejected, and we didn't have to deal with any injuries.

Per the rule, INT on a batted ball does NOT require intent, nor does it require contact with the fielder.

2.00 INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinder or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

In this case, 7.09(j) covers it with "the runner fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball". The kid was looking to run him over!

I still have INT.

[LLWS#32]

Cato:

Great discussion-this is why I like this site (umpire-empire) as opposed to others--nobody got rude in the thread. I think we'll just have to disagree. This is a debate (the confuse/hinder) I've discussed with others in the past and as the District (XV VA) clinician I've advised not to call interference without contact as I think you're getting into a protestable situation.

[Mr Umpire]

While I know the SS pulled up to avoid injury from your description, it would be an easier call to make if there is contact. Reason being that the umpire can't tell if the fielder pulled up due to the runner or he misjudged the ball.

So, it would be tough to explain to a coach that his runner interfered when everyone's perception of the play may not be the same as the umpire's. This is definitely a HTBT to see how obvious the INT was. It may not have been so obvious to an objective standpoint like the umpire's(if he knows what he is doing).

I understood the OP but calling INT without contact is tough to do in many cases. As for F5 contact, if R2 ran into him deliberately, then there could still be OBS but an EJ follows with a new runner coming out to take his place. Again, another HTBT issue. It does sound like the runner should have been Ej'd for his slide but still HTBT to see what he did to cause the issue.

Basically, this is one of those events where it is entirely a HTBT issue. While I know you are an umpire and know the rules, you were still the coach and may not have seen things the way you would have as an umpire. Based upon your description(as a coach), I would side with you for the most part(INT issue is still in the air). But, possibly seeing it, the view may be different.

[MCLEOD36]

Sounds like a pimple that has been left to fester, and I dont mean uncle Fester. Our jobs are enforce the rules and when lousy coaching or umpiring for years is likely the cause of this, we get thrown under the bus. What happens, this is the kid that lasts about 2 weeks on a HS team, despite being beefy and hitting 3 HRS in tryouts. Good umpires end up in HS/College/Pros and only choose to do games like this for fun, however, the fun is usually sucked out of it, the further down the line you go with travel teams and some adult leagues...