No idea at all! What's the call?

[Double Up]

Situation is runners on 1st and 2b.

BR  hits a ball to gap in right. 

R2 comes around scores standing up. 

Throw comes to the plate, and  R1 slides in safely. 

The ball goes to the back stop,  and as the player in the catcher position is accidentally tripped to the ground by R1 who's getting up from his slide. 

The Catcher was clear of the slide when he started running towards the ball,  couple steps into his pursuit,  R1 somehow tripped him up. 

The R1 was already safe...  so I had no idea what to call.   I get that sometimes contact happens and it's just part of playing baseball, but with this one..  the BR was now rounding 3rd base, so I called the ball "dead",  Ending the play...   after all, this was just a scrimmage,  but I'm not exactly sure how this call would have been viewed in tournament play when the entire world is at stake.   

   

[Rich Ives]

4 hours ago, catsbackr said:

I guess the scored runner has to just DISAPPEAR.

Yep - just as a fielder who has to do the same to avoid obstruction.

[Jimurray]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:45 AM, beerguy55 said:

OBR - 6.01-a(5) It is interference when: "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate"

And to add to the above FED rule set, in case there's any question to a retired runner vs a scored runner.

FED - Section 30 - "ART. 3 . . . A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and is still in live-ball area"

 

I'm also pretty sure there's a FED case play supporting the interpretation held by the others in this thread, that retired runner interference does not require intent.  The only exception here is if he is continuing to run the bases normally.  Something a scored runner can not do.

 

 

FED does have caseplays/interps that protect a retired runner in the baseline from unintentional interference with a throw. What they don't have is any reference to protection other than normal baserunning and 8-4-2g seems to require intent for a retired runner whether in or off the basepath. I was under the impression that this was a difference between FED and OBR but I don't have any cite for that. Maybe I got that impression from a rules test. But that is just regarding a throw. I would have INT in the OP.

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, catsbackr said:

I guess the scored runner has to just DISAPPEAR.

No, but he must be aware of his surroundings, the play occurring around him, and his relevance/role/obligations in that play.

 

But yes, sometimes sh!+ happens and you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[jonathantullos]

I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically call interference in the situation described. For me, as I already stated, this is a situation where I have to consider the spirit of the rule as well as the letter. But, as with a lot of other situations, this is also very subjective and a judgement call based on what one sees rather than what they read on a message board.

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically call interference in the situation described. For me, as I already stated, this is a situation where I have to consider the spirit of the rule as well as the letter. But, as with a lot of other situations, this is also very subjective and a judgement call based on what one sees rather than what they read on a message board.

What makes you think the spirit of the rule says that this isn't interference?

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically call interference in the situation described. For me, as I already stated, this is a situation where I have to consider the spirit of the rule as well as the letter. But, as with a lot of other situations, this is also very subjective and a judgement call based on what one sees rather than what they read on a message board.

180 degree turn ... tell me your thoughts when it is phrased this way:

I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically allow the offense to benefit in the situation described.

[jonathantullos]

On 12/27/2019 at 10:15 PM, Matt said:

What makes you think the spirit of the rule says that this isn't interference?

I go back to what I said previously about intent. Also, am I really going to punish a runner if I believe the incident was the result of no mal intent but simply being in the wrong place at the wrong moment? Again, this would be a judgment call that I would have to make in the moment but, at for this situation, I'm inclined to think I likely wouldn't have INT.

 

On 12/28/2019 at 12:27 PM, The Man in Blue said:

180 degree turn ... tell me your thoughts when it is phrased this way:

I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically allow the offense to benefit in the situation described.

See above.

[Biscuit]

1 hour ago, jonathantullos said:

I go back to what I said previously about intent. Also, am I really going to punish a runner if I believe the incident was the result of no mal intent but simply being in the wrong place at the wrong moment? Again, this would be a judgment call that I would have to make in the moment but, at for this situation, I'm inclined to think I likely wouldn't have INT.

 

See above.

Why would you punish the defense for the offense being in the wrong place at the (if you don't call int) right time? Someone was doing something they shouldn't, and one way or the other, someone will be disadvantaged. I'd much rather put the person who is in the wrong at a disadvantage than someone doing what they're supposed too.

[jonathantullos]

18 hours ago, Biscuit said:

Why would you punish the defense for the offense being in the wrong place at the (if you don't call int) right time? Someone was doing something they shouldn't, and one way or the other, someone will be disadvantaged. I'd much rather put the person who is in the wrong at a disadvantage than someone doing what they're supposed too.

Once again... If I believed there was an intentional action I would absolutely call INT. I really don't know how much more clear I can be on this. You can't get the whole picture on this situation from a message board post. As with so many other situations, it would have to be a judgment call. 

Again I say: It's a judgment call. 

[Biscuit]

22 minutes ago, jonathantullos said:

Once again... If I believed there was an intentional action I would absolutely call INT. I really don't know how much more clear I can be on this. You can't get the whole picture on this situation from a message board post. As with so many other situations, it would have to be a judgment call. 

Again I say: It's a judgment call. 

The only judgement is if the runner was in his normal baseruning actions. Going back to the dugout is NOT a part of running the bases, therefore he has no protection. Any hindrance is interference. Not a lot of judgement, and I don't really think this is HTBT. 

[jonathantullos]

6 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

The only judgement is if the runner was in his normal baseruning actions. Going back to the dugout is NOT a part of running the bases, therefore he has no protection. Any hindrance is interference. Not a lot of judgement, and I don't really think this is HTBT. 

I mean, that's fine but from the sound of it all the runner was doing was trying to get up. Suffice it to say, we disagree. I think at this point we're beating a dead horse.

[The Man in Blue]

Leaving the horse out of this ... three things to ask yourself in situations like this:

1) What is the status of the player?  (Batter, batter runner, retired runner, none of the above)
2) What protections are afforded to that status?  (They are different)
3) Is intent a factor in the rule set you are working?  (Some it is, some it is not.)

[Replacematt]

On 12/31/2019 at 5:27 PM, jonathantullos said:

I mean, that's fine but from the sound of it all the runner was doing was trying to get up. Suffice it to say, we disagree. I think at this point we're beating a dead horse.

That's because you're refusing to accept that you are incorrect.

[beerguy55]

On 12/31/2019 at 3:57 PM, jonathantullos said:

Once again... If I believed there was an intentional action I would absolutely call INT. I really don't know how much more clear I can be on this. You can't get the whole picture on this situation from a message board post. As with so many other situations, it would have to be a judgment call. 

Again I say: It's a judgment call. 

No, it is not.

Intent doesn't matter on retired runner interference UNLESS they are simply continuing to run the bases normally...with the exception of completing their slide (NOT getting up after the slide) , and possibly returning to third believing they missed the base, a scored runner can not continue to run the bases normally.   Getting up is not running the bases normally.  Returning to the dugout is not running the bases normally.

Once you understand that you understand that the retired/scored runner is offered no protection here, and thus intent has no bearing on the play.  If they interfered with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner, that runner is out.  If there was no play to be made, there's no interference.

 

The only judgment is whether or not there was a play to interfere with.  There is NO judgment on the scored runner's intent or lack thereof.

Your call would be properly protested, and properly overturned.

[jonathantullos]

Well, that's fine if that's what y'all want to do but I'm not going to punish a kid who doesn't seem to have actually done anything but get up off the ground. If that somehow makes me a poor official, I can live with that. But I also recognize that this really isn't a hill worth dying on so I'm making like a Shark who doesn't like the deal: I'm out.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, jonathantullos said:

Well, that's fine if that's what y'all want to do but I'm not going to punish a kid who doesn't seem to have actually done anything but get up off the ground. If that somehow makes me a poor official, I can live with that. But I also recognize that this really isn't a hill worth dying on so I'm making like a Shark who doesn't like the deal: I'm out.

Yes, I know it sounds crazy, blatantly ignoring the rules you are paid to enforce makes you a poor official.   And, also makes life more difficult for every other official who actually tries to do their job properly....because they always run across coaches who say "but the last umpire we had told me something different".

But you keep following the MSU rule book if it makes you happy. 

 

Christ - you make a statement..and when told you are wrong you  ask for proof via rule citation...then when shown the rule you say you're going to ignore it.  wtf are you here if you're not interested in learning?   You're not gonna get your ego massaged either.

 

[jonathantullos]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Yes, I know it sounds crazy, blatantly ignoring the rules you are paid to enforce makes you a poor official.   And, also makes life more difficult for every other official who actually tries to do their job properly....because they always run across coaches who say "but the last umpire we had told me something different".

But you keep following the MSU rule book if it makes you happy. 

 

Christ - you make a statement..and when told you are wrong you  ask for proof via rule citation...then when shown the rule you say you're going to ignore it.  wtf are you here if you're not interested in learning?   You're not gonna get your ego massaged either.

 

The MSU rule book? Wow. Classy.

I'm interested in learning but I'm not interested in classless comments like that. You can take that junk to the creek.

I'm not going to penalize a kid for doing nothing wrong. Period. But you do you.

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, jonathantullos said:

The MSU rule book? Wow. Classy.

I'm interested in learning but I'm not interested in classless comments like that. You can take that junk to the creek.

I'm not going to penalize a kid for doing nothing wrong. Period. But you do you.

So a kid that has never slid on a turf field should not be called for FED FPSR INT when he overslides and takes out the pivot man because he did nothing wrong? A runner getting hit by a batted ball under certain rule criteria would be doing nothing wrong also. Are you going to penalize him?

[jonathantullos]

21 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So a kid that has never slid on a turf field should not be called for FED FPSR INT when he overslides and takes out the pivot man because he did nothing wrong? A runner getting hit by a batted ball under certain rule criteria would be doing nothing wrong also. Are you going to penalize him?

There's a difference in what you mention and a kid who was simply getting up after he slid. I don't believe the intent of the INT rule is to penalize a kid for getting up off the ground. It's not his fault the catcher was still there. 

Again, if weighing the letter and the spirit of the rule makes me a poor official, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. 

If I believe I saw INT, I'd call it. If I'm unsure I'll see if my partner(s) got a look. If I'm wrong, I'll accept that and move on. But in this instance, I don't believe I am because I don't believe the intent of the rule is to punish a kid for getting up off the ground. That's not an ego thing - I definitely don't know it all and will never claim to - that's me trying to do the right thing not only within the letter of the rule but also within the spirit of the rule.

If my desire to try and do the right thing rubs some people the wrong way, again, I won't lose any sleep over that.

Now, for real this time, I'm done with this thread. Thank you, goodnight, and tip your servers and bartenders.

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

I'm interested in learning

Maybe so, but are you interested in applying what you've learned to making the correct call? 

2 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

I'm not going to penalize a kid for doing nothing wrong. Period.

Apparently not....And that, my friend means you're making $h*t up. it's got nothing to do with "classy". You've been told the correct ruling, you continue to tell us you will not call this play correctly-- therefore...you're making it up. . 

[Aging_Arbiter]

[Richvee]

10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So a kid that has never slid on a turf field should not be called for FED FPSR INT when he overslides and takes out the pivot man because he did nothing wrong?

Actually had a coach use this in a "discussion" after I called a FPSR.  But it wasn't turf. Just the away team. 

"My guys aren't used to sliding on this infield"

"That's what you're going with, coach?"

[JSam21]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

Maybe so, but are you interested in applying what you've learned to making the correct call? 

Apparently not....And that, my friend means you're making $h*t up. it's got nothing to do with "classy". You've been told the correct ruling, you continue to tell us you will not call this play correctly-- therefore...you're making it up. . 

As it is often said on the FB groups... His answers are job security for others. Officiating to the path of least resistance is the bane of the profession and that is exactly what his statements are. "Screw being correct, I don't want to be seen as the bad guy."

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

There's a difference in what you mention and a kid who was simply getting up after he slid. I don't believe the intent of the INT rule is to penalize a kid for getting up off the ground. It's not his fault the catcher was still there. 

It's not about penalizing the kid who got up...it's about NOT penalizing the defense (or not rewarding the offense)....innocent as his actions may be, if he gets up and accidentally trips the catcher, AND prevents the catcher from getting another runner out, or worse, causes another runner to advance a base or score, he has interfered with the play.  And the penalty is clear.  

Or, if the other runner was just standing on or near third base, at the time of the trip, didn't advance, and there was no potential to get him out, then it's nothing....and only then is it nothing.  And I mean nothing...the play stays live, nobody's out, nobody returns to prior bases.  The scored player's lack of intent doesn't enter into it.   

The rule, in fact, is, in part, meant to make YOUR job easier - because now you don't have to determine if the trip was accidental...or simply made to look accidental.

The kid leading off first base who gets hit by a screaming line drive is also out...he had no intent to interfere, and had no hope in hell of getting out of the way, and maybe even prevented an extra base hit into the outfield corner, but it doesn't matter, he is out.

 

Now, if you want to go through the proper channels to get the rule changed, to allow the ump to judge intent, and to add a recourse to kill the play and simply return runners, without any outs, go ahead...you might even get it accomplished.   Until then, all you're doing is confusing coaches and players, and making life difficult for the umpires actually doing their job properly.

[lawump]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Now, if you want to go through the proper channels to get the rule changed, 

FWIW, I would not have brought a proposal to change this rule during my four years on the committee.