Verbal Interference by a coach

[PeteBooth]

This is a Fall ball 18aU classic. Right before he gets tagged about 10 feet from first base the HC yells "Go Now!" and R2 makes a fake 2 step break and then stops and heads back to 3rd. Doing this made F4 not tag R1 and swing around to look at R2. While R1 scampers back into 1st base. Seeing this my partner calls time, announces verbal interference on the HC.

First things First

Which rule set were you playing under?

If you were playing by OBR rules there is NO such animal as verbal interference and if I was the HC I would have protested the ruling on the field.

Even in FED which has explicit language concerning Verbal OBS I have nothing.

All the HC said was "Go Now!" which is his JOB. Also, this is an 18AU game not "kiddie ball" so the defense should know "the deal"

FWIW: A call like your partners could get you demoted around some parts. I equate 18aU type ball to Legion or HS Varsity and if you make a habit out of making calls like that it's back to modified.

Also, why do you think it was a great call? The coach said nothing during F1's delivery. He was simply telling his player what to do. You see this many a time in LL majors where you have R1/R3 and R1 takes off for second. As soon as the 3B coach sees the defense making a play on R1 he will yell to R3 GO HOME. What is wrong with that.

IMO, I echo Warren's comments and IMO, from your OP sounds like your partner and this coach had a "history" and your partner was looking for a way to 'stick it to the coach" ala an FYC call. As mentioned if this were an OBR based game there is NO verbal interference and even in FED I would not have called it.

Pete Booth

[detailshp]

It was the fake spike play:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/sfl-dolclock121208,0,2966660.story

[hckyosgood30]

Ok guys sorry for any confusion that this thread has created. I forgot to add, (honestly I thought I did but obviously not) the 18U was using FED rules b/c it was two local HS teams. Also The Coach Yelled "(kids name) Go Now" Yes my partner also knew both coaches and both teams very well. He also knew the players very well and knew that "johnny" was F4. This fact, since the kid at 3rd wasn't named "Johnny" coach claimed to have had a brain fart. Like I said, I didn't have anything since I was the BU, I was watching the play in front of me. But hearing the explanation from my partner I thought it was a sticky ethical situation, however I did think it was a good call at face value. I guess next time I will try to talk him out of it.

Does having this additional information change the situation at all for you?

[JaxRolo]

No!

[Mr Umpire]

No!

I say No to your "No". Then, say No to that "No". And that leaves us where? No?

Again, I don't think verbal INT is to be called for this. I would look at this as if I didn't know the teams or coaches. What would your call have been then? How would you know he knew the kid's name if you don't know the teams? PU overstepped on this one. No INT even with the new info.

[JaxRolo]

No!

I say No to your "No". Then, say No to that "No". And that leaves us where? No?

Again, I don't think verbal INT is to be called for this. I would look at this as if I didn't know the teams or coaches. What would your call have been then? How would you know he knew the kid's name if you don't know the teams? PU overstepped on this one. No INT even with the new info.

I agree. He is completely changing the OP. But still doesn't matter.

I mean no disrespect but sounds like he changed it to cover his butt since he said it was brilliant

[hckyosgood30]

Jax,

First it wasn't my call. It was my partners. Next no I didn't change the situation, I simply put it out there since the situation wasn't fully correct since I wrote it quickly while I was at work. I wouldn't change the situation to "cover my butt" to satisfy the cyberspace masses. I personally thought it was an odd ethical situation. Like I stated earlier, with the information presented by my partner later in the parking lot, when I asked him. I did think the call was correct at face value in a split second decision. Thus since I'd never seen that call made I put it up here for peoples thoughts. Thus the reason I said, "or was this a case of over umpiring?"

[HugoTafurst]

Ok guys sorry for any confusion that this thread has created. I forgot to add, (honestly I thought I did but obviously not) the 18U was using FED rules b/c it was two local HS teams. Also The Coach Yelled "(kids name) Go Now" Yes my partner also knew both coaches and both teams very well. He also knew the players very well and knew that "johnny" was F4. This fact, since the kid at 3rd wasn't named "Johnny" coach claimed to have had a brain fart. Like I said, I didn't have anything since I was the BU, I was watching the play in front of me. But hearing the explanation from my partner I thought it was a sticky ethical situation, however I did think it was a good call at face value. I guess next time I will try to talk him out of it.

Does having this additional information change the situation at all for you?

Not a bit.

Sorry, as decribed and as modified, it still sounds bogus, not brilliant

[detailshp]

Your additional information doesnt change my call. I still got nothing.

[PeteBooth]

quote name='hckyosgood30' timestamp='1296151725' post='40591']

But hearing the explanation from my partner I thought it was a sticky ethical situation, however I did think it was a good call at face value.

On one hand you say I thought it was a sticky ethical situation and then you say

it was a good call at face value.

Let's break up the sentences and you can enlighten me.

But hearing the explanation from my partner I thought it was a sticky ethical situation

What do you mean? The way I interpret this sentence is that you thought your partner was trying to "stick it" to the coach. My reasoning is your use of the phrase "sticky ethical situation"

I did think it was a good call at face value

The aforementioned is confusing to me. In sentence number 1 you said you thought the call was a sticky ethical situation and then you say at face value it was a good call.

Which is it?

It's either a good call or not.

IMO, it was a terrible call especially at that level of ball. 18AU means some of these kids might be on their way to college.

Pete Booth

[plateumpire29]

Add me to the "nada" group. If that coach had directed what he was saying at the defensive player(such as "he's going home"), then you have something.If he's directing traffic with his comments on his own players, then you have nothing, no matter how loud he says it.