Jump to content
jms1425

to call or not to call (interference), that is my question

Recommended Posts

I know it's a HTBT situation, but I'm less interested in whether the action actually was interference than I am in whether I should have called it as the PU.

2man mechanics

R1 and R2, less than 2 outs -- ground ball towards the hole between F5 and F6, R2 heads toward 3rd, F5 moves to his left to try and field it -- F5 sees R2 coming towards him, hesitates and even makes a slightly sideways step -- I am the PU, and immediately think "interference", but I look at BU who is looking at the play and gives the "safe" signal to indicate "that's nothing", so I do not make any call.... I genuinely thought BU was going to call interference, and that it would have been the right call....

I know the adage "if you see interference, you call interference", but in that moment it felt like the BU had a better look, and if he said there was no interference, I ought to leave that to him.... But, again, I thought that it was interference.

Thoughts? Have I answered my own question? :question1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jms1425 said:

I know it's a HTBT situation, but I'm less interested in whether the action actually was interference than I am in whether I should have called it as the PU.

2man mechanics

R1 and R2, less than 2 outs -- ground ball towards the hole between F5 and F6, R2 heads toward 3rd, F5 moves to his left to try and field it -- F5 sees R2 coming towards him, hesitates and even makes a slightly sideways step -- I am the PU, and immediately think "interference", but I look at BU who is looking at the play and gives the "safe" signal to indicate "that's nothing", so I do not make any call.... I genuinely thought BU was going to call interference, and that it would have been the right call....

I know the adage "if you see interference, you call interference", but in that moment it felt like the BU had a better look, and if he said there was no interference, I ought to leave that to him.... But, again, I thought that it was interference.

Thoughts? Have I answered my own question? :question1:

Yes, you did. We actually pregame this where I am.

If there's a request, your partner does have the option to consult with you. That's far better than having two calls on the same play, especially when one kills it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see this play unfold in my mind's eye, I can't see how this could be INT. Even if F5 is the protected fielder, they can't be closer than 40–50' from each other. The ball must have been somewhat hard hit, or F5 would be charging in to field it. I can't figure how R2 would be close enough to hinder F5.

I don't dispute what you saw, of course, merely your interpretation of it. If your partner ruled that this is nothing, then that's good enough for me. We want INT to call itself, and it sounds as if this wasn't obviously hindrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jms1425 said:

Thoughts? Have I answered my own question? :question1:

It's your partner's call, he saw it and made a ruling.  Why would you even think about making a different (unsolicited) call.

It's (nearly) the same play as "R1 stealing; my partner calls the runner safe; I'm sure he was out,  Should I make a call?"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jms1425 said:

BU who is looking at the play and gives the "safe" signal to indicate "that's nothing"

What noumpere said, especially in light of the fact above....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LRZ said:

What noumpere said, especially in light of the fact above....

That is the key. In our pregames, we know that if there's something close, and the primary umpire does nothing, then any other umpire can jump on it. If there's a signal, then they don't.

This came up in one of my partner's previous games (3-umpire system with R1.) Who has the primary duties for OBS/INT between R1 and F3 charging? No one made a signal. Someone could have (and should have) gotten it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jms1425 said:

I am the PU, and immediately think "interference", but I look at BU who is looking at the play and gives the "safe" signal to indicate "that's nothing", so I do not make any call.... I genuinely thought BU was going to call interference, and that it would have been the right call....

I know the adage "if you see interference, you call interference", but in that moment it felt like the BU had a better look, and if he said there was no interference, I ought to leave that to him.... But, again, I thought that it was interference.

The sentence-fragment in red is the key to this whole play.

Both umpires have their responsibilities, and if one guy makes a ruling, it's been covered.  If your partner has ruled "that's nothing" and you try the "if you see something, say something" deal, a) you're going to have an on-field SH*# storm, and b) you're a Bad Partner.  I say the latter, because you're stepping on his .... well ..... groin.  AND because, depending on how savvy the coach is, he's gonna KNOW it was your partner's call, and he's be All Over him.

On the other hand, if he HADN'T ruled something, then by all means, get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if F5 reacts to R2, without R2 actually impeding him, or being within feet of R2 or touching R2, isn't it on F5 for reacting to something that he shouldn't have?  How do you put it on R2 for doing what he's supposed to, run to third, without being given the chance to avoid any potential IFF?  

 

F5's reaction to where R2 is on him until R2 makes contact or a move to impede the fielder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a situation kinda like this,

 

We did not pregame it.( meaning we did not discuss INT)  Was 4 man  I had 1b   Slow roller up the 1b line p1 went over to grab it I think he was waiting to see if it went foul. BR bumped him going up the line himself, and he was not in the running lane. ( not that it would matter)  I saw it and I thought to myself thats INT,  next thought I looked at the PU and he was watching the ball to see if it rolled foul.  about 5 seconds goes by and then he calls the INT.  The whole time I was thinking CRAP do I call it or does he.  That 5 seconds caused a little hubub we had to role back a player whom scored to 3rd and a kid who was rounding 3rd back to 2nd.

I chatted with the 2BU in between the innings he told me you see it clearly just call it. Because then and there its a DB.  It helps keep the rest of the fiasco from happening. 

my lesson learned that day was if its plain and clear call it ( INT that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

The sentence-fragment in red is the key to this whole play.

Both umpires have their responsibilities, and if one guy makes a ruling, it's been covered.  If your partner has ruled "that's nothing" and you try the "if you see something, say something" deal, a) you're going to have an on-field SH*# storm, and b) you're a Bad Partner.  I say the latter, because you're stepping on his .... well ..... groin.  AND because, depending on how savvy the coach is, he's gonna KNOW it was your partner's call, and he's be All Over him.

On the other hand, if he HADN'T ruled something, then by all means, get it.

Then I'm coming out asking the PU why he's calling INT from his position when the BU (per the OP) is watching the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BLarson said:

Then I'm coming out asking the PU why he's calling INT from his position when the BU (per the OP) is watching the play.

Umm...what you bolded was a change from the OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BLarson said:

Then I'm coming out asking the PU why he's calling INT from his position when the BU (per the OP) is watching the play.

You/we can't say that unilaterally. There are certainly times that Interference (INT) occurs, and should be called by an Umpire, regardless of close(r) proximity of another Umpire. Classic example is FPSR / Illegal Slide / INT at 2B, often seen in 2-man, wherein F4/F6 touches 2B and throws on to 1B, with BU turning to follow the ball to 1B. That slide may be illegal (or not even happening, and Interfering), and the PU has the better view of it. Or, another involves RLI at 1B, wherein the BU may signal (mechanic) Safe, but BR was out of the lane, only distinguishable by PU.

Just because the closest, or "responsible" umpire didn't see it or call it doesn't mean that Interference didn't occur. Granted, once an Umpire signals or calls a refutation of INT ("That's nothing" or the Safe mechanic), the "sell" of an INT call becomes that much more difficult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) In the OP, PU had a partner who had the better angle and distance, he made a “That’s nothing!” call, and he actually communicated his call. How sweet is that? Sounds like a guy I’d be pleased to work with any day of the week;

(2) As I recall, the Nelson/Evans Manual (assuming it’s still good law), implicitly gives primary responsibility for this type of inter-base interference/obstruction to BU, with PU charged with helping and grabbing any obstruction/interference that the BU “might miss“ as a secondary responsibility. Here BU didn’t miss any, he was all over it, and he made a call in his mind that he communicated to the world. And it might have been the absolute right call. Just because F-5 checked up doesn’t mean he was actually hindered—they could have been two ships passing in the night in separate lanes, one of which got startled for no reason—regardless, BU had both angle and distance from C, it was his primary “judgment” call to make, and as mentioned above, I think he rocks!

PS—I don’t disagree with anything MadMax stated, in fact I agree with every word. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent feedback and you have all helped clarify my thinking. 

The point about the fact that my partner signaled "that's nothing" taking precedent here is key, and really helped cement the idea that I did the right thing by not making the call myself. Had he not signaled anything that's a different a story, but his indication should take the lead.

Thanks, guys. :cheers:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2020 at 11:49 AM, Matt said:

Yes, you did. We actually pregame this where I am.

If there's a request, your partner does have the option to consult with you. That's far better than having two calls on the same play, especially when one kills it.

Excellent protocol to pregame situations and priorities like this.  I'd bring up the post-game meeting as well.  Anytime I see something like this I may initially disagree with (any close call for that matter), Im saying, "Let's talk about that......in the ......inning."  We can all learn something, for better or worse if we communicate those things after.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 9:33 PM, Recontra said:

(1) In the OP, PU had a partner who had the better angle and distance, he made a “That’s nothing!” call, and he actually communicated his call. How sweet is that? Sounds like a guy I’d be pleased to work with any day of the week;

(2) As I recall, the Nelson/Evans Manual (assuming it’s still good law), implicitly gives primary responsibility for this type of inter-base interference/obstruction to BU, with PU charged with helping and grabbing any obstruction/interference that the BU “might miss“ as a secondary responsibility. Here BU didn’t miss any, he was all over it, and he made a call in his mind that he communicated to the world. And it might have been the absolute right call. Just because F-5 checked up doesn’t mean he was actually hindered—they could have been two ships passing in the night in separate lanes, one of which got startled for no reason—regardless, BU had both angle and distance from C, it was his primary “judgment” call to make, and as mentioned above, I think he rocks!

PS—I don’t disagree with anything MadMax stated, in fact I agree with every word. 

 

 

I like what you said Recontra, but I do have to drill down on that bolded bit a little more.  How do we know that isn't what happened?  How do we know the BU didn't miss it from his angle?

I am fully agreeable that his signal gave him the call and PU should let it stand ... but that doesn't mean the BU was right.

Poking this one a little further ... what happens when the coach comes out to talk to BU and BU comes to PU to talk.  BU says "It looked good to me, but I got caught behind the runner."  PU says "Oh, I had interference all day on that one."  The two come apart, explain the call, and now the coach (who is just an a-hole) wants to know why PU didn't call it since an umpire should always call interference when they see it (eh).

We know plays look different from different angles, and this is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

The two come apart, explain the call, and now the coach (who is just an a-hole) wants to know why PU didn't call it since an umpire should always call interference when they see it (eh).

Easy. I don't debate mechanics with coaches unless there's a dog that needs to hunt. I'm perfectly okay with a coach leaving a discussion as pissed off or more than when he got there if there's nothing worth discussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed @Matt, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  He can be as pissed as he wants.  It may make my job more difficult the rest of the game, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

I was just trying to point out that this is a spiraling puzzle that does not have a correct answer as to whether there was interference, but a "better" answer regarding the mechanics.

My takeaway/opinion: if you see it, you should call it IF your partner doesn't ... no signal from the BU means he may not have seen it (just missed it or it looked different) however BU ACTIVELY signaling means he has the call.  Interference and obstruction are NOT like a routine safe/out call.

Another way of looking at this is that it is better to let the play go on.  You can come together and fix it easily.  However, once you kill it, it is dead.  (Yes, you have the power to fix that, but it is messy.)

  • Like 1

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...