Jump to content
VolUmp

No-Call Zone

Recommended Posts

Before the BR gets to the 35' line, he can't be guilty of RLI. It would have to be an intentional act for him to be guilty of interference. If he's anywhere near a normal basepath, I'd call it the same as if there was no entanglement near the plate - the catcher should have made a better throw. Play on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With FED,
I’ve never seen in writing that there is a perceived, “No-Call Zone” around the plate when the Batter and Catcher collide in a situation where neither player makes an intentional or unusual move that breaks up a play or causes the runner to fall, stumble, or slow. 
However, I judge there to be a “No-Call Zone” under every rules set I call.
I’m particularly interested in feedback regarding the area between the “No-Call Zone” (NCZ) and the beginning of the running lane.  I’ll offer these sitches, and I’m assuming FED rules.
Sitches A/B
Batter bunts, Catcher and Batter collide as both are passing through the NCZ.  Batter gathers himself about 6 feet into fair territory after the collision.  
A:  He runs on an angle as though he’s trying to get back to the base path by the beginning of the 45’ running lane when he’s hit in the back 35 feet up the line by F2’s quality throw.
B:  He runs parallel to the basepath showing no attempt to get to the beginning of the 45’ running lane he’s hit in the back 35 feet up the line by F2’s quality throw.
I realize FED makes no mention of a “quality throw” even in the RLI ruling.  I’m assuming a quality throw here, because to me, it would make a difference in how I rule on these Sitches. 
There is no such thing as a NCZ. You would have to judge incidental contact, interference or obstruction. Once the ball has been batted (or bunted) the BR becomes a runner and is subject to the interference rules if he runs into a protected fielder making a play on a batted ball, including F2. (This will most likely never happen as the catcher has to come out of the crouch as the BR is already on his way to 1st).
Also FED makes not mention that the throw has to be quality, and you may call a RLV because a quality throw could not be made (the only rule set that allows this)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 8:00 PM, Mike D said:

This will most likely never happen as the catcher has to come out of the crouch as the BR is already on his way to 1st).

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is it that said, "sometime you just have to umpire"?  And, "use the rules to solve a problem, not create them"?

In the OP, I have nothing. Catcher and F3 need to get on the same page. Practice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Well, however unlikely, it happens.  This is not unusual when the batter is bunting while off balance.  I’ve seen it from both sides of the plate. 

What you’re calling “incidental contact” is precisely what is meant by the “no-call zone,” where something intentional or unusual has to occur before making an OBS or INT call.

Ever since the 1975 World Series involving Carlton Fisk & Ed Armbrister, and actually well before that, it’s been referred to “widely” as the no-call zone ... roughly the dirt circle around home plate. 

First time I've ever heard it called the no-call zone.   If I have incidental contact between batter and catcher in front of the plate after a bunt I will give a safe sign and say' "That's nothing".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing. Throw hit the runner before the running lane. BR can run anywhere the first 45 feet as long as he does not intentionally interfere.

53 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

 

I’ve never seen in writing that there is a perceived, “No-Call Zone” around the plate when the Batter and Catcher collide in a situation where neither player makes an intentional or unusual move that breaks up a play or causes the runner to fall, stumble, or slow. 

Here's your case play for FED. (Your imaginary NCZ notwithstanding)

8.1.1 SITUATION R:

B1 hits a fair ball in front of home plate. Both the batter-runner and catcher make contact while trying to complete their respective responsibilities.

RULING: If either player attempts to alter the play, interference or obstruction shall be called depending on who violates the rule. If neither player attempts to alter the play, no call shall be made.

 

My take on this. Same in all codes. If both are doing what they should be doing, and don't intentionally interfere or obstruct, it's nothing. The key is doing what they should be doing..that includes the batter RUNNING to 1B. IMO, if the batter hits the ball out in front of the plate, doesn't attempt to run, and by standing there interferes with F2, I have INT.  In your case,it sounds like nothing to me.

52 minutes ago, Mike D said:

the BR becomes a runner and is subject to the interference rules if he runs into a protected fielder making a play on a batted ball, including F2

Not necessarily in front of home plate..see case play above. 

 

53 minutes ago, Mike D said:

This will most likely never happen as the catcher has to come out of the crouch as the BR is already on his way to 1st

Happens more often than you think.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard term for this comes (IIRC) from J/R: tangle/untangle. It is indeed the same in all codes. Rich has posted the FED case play supporting the ruling.

I've never heard the term 'no call zone', nor do I care for its implication of an area where we make no calls. Tangle/untangle captures the idea better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, however unlikely, it happens.  This is not unusual when the batter is bunting while off balance.  I’ve seen it from both sides of the plate. 
What you’re calling “incidental contact” is precisely what is meant by the “no-call zone,” where something intentional or unusual has to occur before making an OBS or INT call.
Ever since the 1975 World Series involving Carlton Fisk & Ed Armbrister, and actually well before that, it’s been referred to “widely” as the no-call zone ... roughly the dirt circle around home plate. 
Let me try to be a little more clear with my explaination.

Intent is not always needed for interference or obstruction. While some instances of intentional action do constitute interference (swatting at a ball or glove) most interference calls do not have the requirement of being intentional.

They're is not a zone that we do not make calls in, at least with FED rules. If a runner hinders a fielder making a play on a batted ball out is interference, no matter where it is. Likewise if a fielder blocks a runners path without the ball it is obstruction. If the catcher was making a play on a batted ball and the BR hinders that play it is interference. If the catcher is not the protected fielder making the play on batted ball it would be obstruction. In cases of contact between a runner and a fielder making a play on a batted ball the onus is on the runner to avoid the fielder even if that fielder is in the base path.

The incidental contact would come in where neither of those conditions are met. These are situations where the runner has been allowed to reach the base, and the fielder is receiving a throw from another fielder and the two players contact over a base. (This is also not due to an illegal slide) Incidental contact can not happen with a fielder making a play on a batted ball, just as incidental contact can not happen when a fielder blocks the base path without the ball.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

it’s been referred to “widely” as the no-call zone

Maybe "widely" around you...Never have I heard this term.

9 minutes ago, Mike D said:

If a runner hinders a fielder making a play on a batted ball out is interference, no matter where it is.

I urge you to read the above case play. On a ball hit out in front of the plate, if the batter starts running, and catcher moves to field the ball, barring one of the two pushing, grabbing, tripping, etc. the other, it's tangle/untangle. Play on. Neither INT nor OBS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike D said:

Let me try to be a little more clear with my explaination.

Intent is not always needed for interference or obstruction. While some instances of intentional action do constitute interference (swatting at a ball or glove) most interference calls do not have the requirement of being intentional.

They're is not a zone that we do not make calls in, at least with FED rules. If a runner hinders a fielder making a play on a batted ball out is interference, no matter where it is. Likewise if a fielder blocks a runners path without the ball it is obstruction. If the catcher was making a play on a batted ball and the BR hinders that play it is interference. If the catcher is not the protected fielder making the play on batted ball it would be obstruction. In cases of contact between a runner and a fielder making a play on a batted ball the onus is on the runner to avoid the fielder even if that fielder is in the base path.

The incidental contact would come in where neither of those conditions are met. These are situations where the runner has been allowed to reach the base, and the fielder is receiving a throw from another fielder and the two players contact over a base. (This is also not due to an illegal slide) Incidental contact can not happen with a fielder making a play on a batted ball, just as incidental contact can not happen when a fielder blocks the base path without the ball.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

If there is a bunted ball in front of the plate and the batter and catcher run in to each other, it is incidental, or as Maven states tangle/untangle as long as they were both doing what they were supposed to be doing and not committing an infraction on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

Ever since the 1975 World Series involving Carlton Fisk & Ed Armbrister, and actually well before that, it’s been referred to “widely” as the no-call zone ... roughly the dirt circle around home plate. 

Only, apparently, by you / your association.

To the extent the rule comes into play, it has to do with OBS and / or interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.  So, the throw has nothing to do with it.

And, once you worry about the throw, then the initial contact has nothing to do with it.  Further, if you're not calling RLI, then it's just like another interference with a thrown ball.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 7:53 PM, VolUmp said:

I judge there to be a “No-Call Zone” under every rules set I call.

Making up your own rules, guidelines and judgments is no way to umpire. You don't have the authority to create these no-call zones. You are paid to be the arbiter of the rules others have created -- your duty is to learn and enforce them appropriately. Making calls using your method is problematic at best.

Coach: Hey why didn't you call obstruction?!

You: Coach, that happened in the no-call zone.

Coach: That WHAT?!

You: The no-call zone or "NCZ" for short. The area around the plate when the Batter and Catcher collide in a situation where neither player makes an intentional or unusual move that breaks up a play or causes the runner to fall, stumble, or slow. I judge there to be a “No-Call Zone” under every rules set I call.

Coach: [Goes back to dugout shaking his head. Later calls your association and has you scratched for eternity. Drinks heavily in hopes of erasing the memory of your on-field explanation.]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 9:36 PM, noumpere said:

Only, apparently, by you / your association.

To the extent the rule comes into play, it has to do with OBS and / or interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.  So, the throw has nothing to do with it.

And, once you worry about the throw, then the initial contact has nothing to do with it.  Further, if you're not calling RLI, then it's just like another interference with a thrown ball.

5 pages of google for "no call zone baseball" is all about the debate about robot umpires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...