Interference?

[Guest Jasper]

Varsity high school game / FED: Bases loaded, one out. F1 throws a pass ball and F2 hustles after it. F1 comes in to cover the plate as R3 is running home. The batter (left handed hitter) makes a fairly non-chalant attempt to get out of the play, but the throw from F2 to the plate hits the batter in the back of the helmet. The ball richocets off the helmet far enough for a second run to score (R2 from second base). Umpires say that "the batter got out of the box, so it's still a live ball. Both runs score." The coach disagreed, but wasn't going to win the arguement. The team on Defense ended up losing by 1 run, so this was a big play in the game.

The way I read the rule book, is that this is a "delayed dead ball" situation and since no out was made due to the Batter Interference and there were less than 2 outs R3 should have been called out and R2 should have been sent back to 3B.

What's the right call?

[mstaylor]

First, it's not a batter's interference call once the ball got away from the catcher. Once it gets away the batter has to clear, or make an honest effort to do so. Can't tell from the description if he made a honest effort, you just have umpire that part.

[Umpire in Chief]

Jasper, Thanks for the question.

I'm going to say this in not batters interference, but there is a lot more detail I'd want to know because this is a had to be there type situation.

Batters interference in this situation is going to be the judgement of the umpire. Interference does not need to be intentional. You mentioned he made a non-chalant attempt to get out of the way and also that the throw from the backstop hit the batter out in the helmet.

As I see it the batter did what could be reasonably expected, and the throw was apparently errant if it hits the batter in the helmet. Thus the ball remains live and any runs would count. Based on how you explained it that he got out of the way, I'm going to want to see the batter actively interfere.

Now I do not agree with the explanation given, that because the batter was out of the box the ball remains live. The batter can interfere if he is out of the box.

[Jocko]

I think there's some grasping at straws. Sorry, Jasper, I don't see INT here. F1 throws a wild pitch, batter vacates, F2 throws errant and hits B5 in the back of the head? Ummmmm...... No.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for the replies everyone. This is certainly a HTBT situation. It may have been obvious by my original post, but I'm the HC for the team that was on defense and I wasn't satisfied with the description given by the umpires because quite frankly they knew they didn't know exactly know what the call was and you could tell they were stumbling through their explanations. After a long (civil) discussion, I knew I wasn't going to get an appropriate response so I "agreed to disagree".

Trying to be impartial, as a coach, it appeared as if the batter "could have done more" to get out of the way.......but I'm fine with the call if it's the umpire's judgement. Again, I was more upset by the explanation and the lack of confidence in this situation.

Just one more point of clarification.......Assuming the umpire judged the batter did NOT interfere, does the ball actually remain live if this situation?

[JaxRolo]

Thanks for the replies everyone. This is certainly a HTBT situation. It may have been obvious by my original post, but I'm the HC for the team that was on defense and I wasn't satisfied with the description given by the umpires because quite frankly they knew they didn't know exactly know what the call was and you could tell they were stumbling through their explanations. After a long (civil) discussion, I knew I wasn't going to get an appropriate response so I "agreed to disagree".

Trying to be impartial, as a coach, it appeared as if the batter "could have done more" to get out of the way.......but I'm fine with the call if it's the umpire's judgement. Again, I was more upset by the explanation and the lack of confidence in this situation.

Just one more point of clarification.......Assuming the umpire judged the batter did NOT interfere, does the ball actually remain live if this situation?

Yes it would remain live

[noumpere]

the rule is 7.3.5d "failing to make a resonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away."

I bolded the parts that are umpire judgment.

[Umpire in Chief]

Absent interference the ball remains live.

[mstaylor]

The batter probably was OK but the reason given wasn't good. I understand your displeasure with what you were told. Rules knowledge and game management are what gets you moved up the ranks. Experience is what gains both. I'm glad to see you kept it civil and realized that they simply were in the weeds on knowledge. I know as a very experienced umpire and instructor, that when I did manage I only questioned rules interps. I generally knew before I went out the knowledge level of the umpires before I asked. If I knew their knowledge or experience level was low, I would explain their error but never get too excited during the game. If they chose to fix it, great, if they didn't I would teach them after the game away from everybody. I never chose to embarass any umpire on the field, and my after games discussions were instructional only.

[Guest Jasper]

Thanks again for the additional replies. To add some more detail, this was a Regional Semi-Final game with umpires assigned by the state athletic association. Only umpires of a certain level (according to our state's ranking system) are assigned playoff games. Their lack of confidence threw me off because I was expecting the PU to say something like:

"Coach, I believe the batter made every attempt to get out of the way and in my judgement he didn't interfere and since interference wasn't called, the ball remains live and both runs score".

While I wouldn't have agreed with his judgment (still don't agree with it actually), I would have felt better about it. Thanks again for your responses. Your comments allowed me to explain to the players (and their parents) what the correct call was etc.

[boyinr]

I think that you have a very reasonable expectation given the magnitude/level of the game. Thank you for bringing this topic up. It helps everyone learn and get better.

[mstaylor]

Wow, a regional and getting that level of rules confusion. Unfortunately many times in youth sports longevity is more important than ability.

[Jocko]

Yes the ball is still live. I hate to throw fellow umps to the wolves by agreeing with 1 point of view. Given what you said in quotation marks, and the fact you took the time to come here for more opinions, I would tend to believe you, but still hate to render an opinion on judgement of an action I didn't witness. That being said, I personally wouldn't give you an explanation to the extent you indicated. I would more likely say, "I don't have INT, Jasper." Or something to that effect. Not the ball remains live and both runs score. Thats obvious if I don't have INT. You may be expecting to be catered to just a bit much IMO. No offense intended, just telling youu how I would handle it. Less is more.

[dumbdumb]

Yes the ball is still live. I hate to throw fellow umps to the wolves by agreeing with 1 point of view. Given what you said in quotation marks, and the fact you took the time to come here for more opinions, I would tend to believe you, but still hate to render an opinion on judgement of an action I didn't witness. That being said, I personally wouldn't give you an explanation to the extent you indicated. I would more likely say, "I don't have INT, Jasper." Or something to that effect. Not the ball remains live and both runs score. Thats obvious if I don't have INT. You may be expecting to be catered to just a bit much IMO. No offense intended, just telling youu how I would handle it. Less is more.

Agreed, although I am glad Jasper came here to ask his question.

Just remember, some guys can quote the book, but can't umpire a lick, while others can run circles around their fellow umpires on the field but couldn't quote the rule to save their lives and have poor communication skills.

[dumbdumb]

Yes the ball is still live. I hate to throw fellow umps to the wolves by agreeing with 1 point of view. Given what you said in quotation marks, and the fact you took the time to come here for more opinions, I would tend to believe you, but still hate to render an opinion on judgement of an action I didn't witness. That being said, I personally wouldn't give you an explanation to the extent you indicated. I would more likely say, "I don't have INT, Jasper." Or something to that effect. Not the ball remains live and both runs score. Thats obvious if I don't have INT. You may be expecting to be catered to just a bit much IMO. No offense intended, just telling youu how I would handle it. Less is more.

Agreed, although I am glad Jasper came here to ask his question.

Just remember, some guys can quote the book, but can't umpire a lick, while others can run circles around their fellow umpires on the field but couldn't quote the rule to save their lives and have poor communication skills. They know the rules and the infractions when they see them, and they call it correctly, but are hard pressed to explain them, much less explain them to a coaches satisfaction if you don't use the exact words the coach may be looking for.

Just try explaining "attempt" when a runner over runs first and turns left rather than right as everybody is taught from day one. They could care less about the word "attempt", they only want to hear that you "did see and admit that you did see" the runner turn left, and now you are not going to call him out.

[Guest Jasper]

Thanks for the ongoing discussion on this topic. I wanted to respond Trout's comment about "expecting to be catered to" when looking for an explanation from the Umpire. Admittedly, I wasn't sure if the ball remained live when it hits a batter during a play at the plate. Thanks to the earlier responses I now know, that it IS live if INT isn't called.

When talking to the umpires, my two questions were 1). Was it interference? and 2). Does the ball remain live?. When I ask questions to an umpire (especially in an appropriate, non-argumentative tone) shouldn't I expect an answer? I don't think I'm out of line to ask these two questions and it has nothing to do with being catered to or to show up the umpire. They were two appropriate questions to ask during a critical, momentum-turning play of the game. Honestly, I take no offense to Trout's comment, but let's do some role playing:

Me (coach): Trout, isn't that interference?

Trout (umpire): I don't have INT, coach

Me: The ball hit the batter, is that still a live ball?

Trout: Yes sir. If INT isn't called ball remains live.

I think this would be about text book discussion between a coach and an umpire.

Seriously, NO offense taken.....I certainly appreciate the comments and information. It's allowing everyone to see this situation from different angles and perspectives.

[mstaylor]

I do agree the less said the better in most cases, but unusual plays require some discussion. If a coach asks if I had interference I will certainly tell yes or no. In the case, I would simply say no, he moved enough for me to judge no.

[Jocko]

I wasnn't referring to your completely appropriate request for information. Justifiable and warranetd. Just seemed like you wanted a wordier (is that even a word?) Response than I would normally give. I am always approachable and will answer any question (asked appropriately) in a professional courteous manner. Jasper - Fish, do you have INT? Me - no, Jasper I got it clean. Jasper - is the ball still live? Me - it was until I called time to talk about the INT/no INT. I never discuss ANYTHING while the ball is live.

[dumbdumb]

Once again glad to have the question.

Umpires say that "the batter got out of the box, so it's still a live ball. Both runs score."

I took this statement as the umpire (without going into a perfect speech or explanation by any means) meaning exactly what we have been talking about. This was his way of saying exactly the above about "no interference and the ball stays alive", without being eloquent or giving a Dale Carnegie course speech about what had just happened. It was a very plain vanilla explanation.

If the way he was talking, left the impression that he was not really sure, that would be another HTBT situation with all of us listening to both you as the coach and him as the umpire.

Sorry you were not satisfied, nor probably ever will be, but without being there for both the play and the discussion afterwards, it is hard to pick sides, as to whether the correct call was made or to whether the umpire sounded sure of himself in the discussion.

Keep those situations coming, we all learn something.

[Jocko]

Thanks for playing "Ask The Umpire!" Come back any time you have questions. Rules questions are easiest. situations are sometimes hard to get an accurate mental image, so if we seem to give the benefit of doubt to the umpire, we do He saw it in living color and had a grasp on all things considered. It's not always as cut and dried as it may seem.