Jump to content

Batter Runner Waving Arms At R3

BlueKen

By BlueKen
in Situations

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 5738 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

BlueKen

BlueKen

Posted
Posted

OBR rules. Youth baseball. Runner on 3rd with no outs. Batter hits ball to F6 who throws to F3 for the force. Batter continues to run to 1st waving his arms to distract F3 from throwing home because runner on 3rd is trying to score.

No contact and batter runner is 10' away from F3 when he throws home. R3 is safe at home on the play.

DC is yelling for interference. I didn't call it. At best to me it's just an unsportsmanlike A-Rod move. But without contact with F3 or the baseball, is it interference?

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

yawetag

yawetag

Posted
Posted

But without contact with F3 or the baseball, is it interference?

Nope.

yawetag

yawetag

Posted
Posted

In general, my statement is incorrect, and I'm sorry for the confusion.

In this play, I don't think I'd call it, but it's a HTBT.

catoblue

catoblue

Posted
Posted (edited)

HTBT for sure, but from the description, there's a pretty good chance I'd call the int.

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,

obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

Edited by catoblue
NWA_UMP

NWA_UMP

Posted
Posted

Sure sounds to me like 7.09(e). Obviously, it's HTBT to a certain degree, but I think the intent was certainly there...

agree..but you are going to have a chit storm if you call it from the OC...but if happened as described batter/runner is doing it for one reason only...to interfer...collect that out! :2cents:

Mr Umpire

Mr Umpire

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is HTBT to see what BR was doing and how he interfered but it certainly sounds like INT. I'd probably be calling it.

Edited by Mr Umpire
Mr Umpire

Mr Umpire

Posted
Posted

"Trying to interfere" is not (generally) an out.

So, while BR loses all benefit of the doubt, there still must be interference before a call is made.

True. And, that is the most part of the HTBT. Did he actually interfere? But, it won't take much to come to that conclusion. An offline throw could easily be read that way. It may not take much convincing to call it.

I have seen the statement before and made it myself. There has to be INT to call INT.

boyinr

boyinr

Posted
Posted

I call it interference if only to save the player from himself. Preventitive officiating. If the coach doesn't have the sense to stop it maybe he will after a few outs. In the future, someone is going to show him why this is simply not a good thing to do. Old school play groud justice.

Dragon29

Dragon29

Posted
Posted

I call it interference if only to save the player from himself. Preventitive officiating. If the coach doesn't have the sense to stop it maybe he will after a few outs. In the future, someone is going to show him why this is simply not a good thing to do. Old school play groud justice.

I would shy away from trying to teach players or managers while umpiring; it generally leads to disaster. If the OM asks why you called Interference, are you going to tell him it's because his player needs to learn how to run the bases better, or that he needs to coach them differently?

Call the INT if it's there; don't call it if it's not - Don't try to 'help' while you're out there. No good deed goes unpunished.

  • 2 weeks later...
mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

It is a HTBT but I would lean heavily toward interference. An attempt to interfere is interference. Are you saying that a R2 stopping in front of the SS isn't getting banged for interference? You have to call it when it happens, not after the result.

BlueKen

BlueKen

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I called the Out on R2 at 1st and then saw F3 throw home and never saw R2 waving his arms. A parent started yelling about it and then the coach asked me about it. I told the coach that I didn't see it.

The Supervisor after the game said he saw the play and didn't see the interference either. He also told me that instead of telling the coach that I didn't see the action, I should have said that the R2 never waved his arms. He said never admit you didn't see something. I feel that is weak advice and it is more confrontational to say the coach was wrong then to say that if there was interference I didn't see it.

Any thoughts from you more experienced umpires (which is all of you)?

yawetag

yawetag

Posted
Posted

The Supervisor after the game said he saw the play and didn't see the interference either. He also told me that instead of telling the coach that I didn't see the action, I should have said that the R2 never waved his arms. He said never admit you didn't see something. I feel that is weak advice and it is more confrontational to say the coach was wrong then to say that if there was interference I didn't see it.

Any thoughts from you more experienced umpires (which is all of you)?

In this situation, I wouldn't lie and say the runner wasn't waving his arms. If he were, you look like a liar -- which you are. Instead, if you tell him you didn't see it, he can't argue about it.

You could also say "In my judgment, it wasn't interference."

ukce1861

ukce1861

Posted
Posted

I agree with the others and find your Supervisor's suggestion to be asinine... Whether or not the BR waved his arms, is a concrete fact. For you to deny this makes you look retarded. Saying that you didn't see interference is something different entirely. This then becomes a matter of your judgment, which ends the discussion. I think you'd be better off point-blank telling the coach you did not see the BR than saying that he didn't wave his arms.

mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

Saying you didn't see it is simply the truth. If yo are supposed to be looking elsewhere, how can you look at two things in oppsing directions.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

Saying you didn't see it is simply the truth. If yo are supposed to be looking elsewhere, how can you look at two things in oppsing directions.

Here's the OP:

Batter hits ball to F6 who throws to F3 for the force. Batter continues to run to 1st waving his arms to distract F3 from throwing home because runner on 3rd is trying to score.

Just where else would you be looking?

Just say "I don't have interference on the play". Saying you didn't see it means either you're lying or blind. Are those impressions you want to send?

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Saying you didn't see it is simply the truth. If yo are supposed to be looking elsewhere, how can you look at two things in oppsing directions.

If you were looking elsewhere, and were supposed to be looking elsewhere, state exactly where and why you were looking there.

"As you know (hah!) coach, my responsibility on that play is to be sure R2 touches third. I was watching that at the time."

Don't just say "I didn't see it."

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
Posted

As the play is described, F3 has the ball and is attempting a play on R3 who is headed home.

If you are NOT looking at F3 (where the ball is) - then where ARE you looking?

;)

Hint: you should be looking at F3 (where the ball is).

If it were me, I'd get the out on the INT - however, I agree with those that have said this is "HTBT" - if R3 scored easily long before a throw, then it's 'count the run'. But it's surely HTBT, based on the timing of how/when things happen.

This is likely more of a situation in youth baseball...you don't typicall see this at higher levels of baseball because they have ways of ensuring that sort of garbage doesn't happen... and if it does, it'll only happen once. :HS

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...