Jump to content
  • 0

Umpire Interference


mrumpiresir

Question

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

For NFHS it is a delayed dead ball, but it is only ruled dead if an out is not recorded on the initial throw. (emphasis added below in exact ruling) 

NFHS 8-3-6

ART. 6 . . . When a plate umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher’s
throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pickoff play,
if an out is not made at the end of the catcher’s initial throw, the ball shall be
dead and all runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the
interference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It is the same application, different wording in the rule: 

OBR 5.06(c)(2)

(2) The plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pick-off play; runners may not advance.

NOTE: The interference shall be disregarded if the catcher’s throw retires the runner.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

If this happens to you, you're too close>  If F2 retires the runner after your interference, you owe him a hot dog after the game.

I've had it happen to me a couple of times over the years and I can't say that I agree with that as a carte blanche claim. I distinctly remember the last time it happened to me (and I had to put R1 back) and the catcher bobbled the exchange and took a step back instead of forward before he then stepped and threw. I was getting out of the way as hard as I could and his hand (actually more the ball) barely touched my mask. To be honest, I knew he didn't even know it happened, to which he later confessed and apologized. I really only called it because of, well, cameras. I'm just being honest and maybe I shouldn't be but it's the truth. It was a pretty high profile game and cameras and cell phone cameras were running everywhere. I knew I'd be criticized regardless so I erred on the side supported by rule. All that to say this. I disagree. It is not always us being too close. I see far too many guys missing outside corner pitches because they are simply too far away. I'll take my chances, and if it's on me, I'll own it, but I won't paint with a broad brush that I was in error because it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, WilsonFlyer said:

I've had it happen to me a couple of times over the years and I can't say that I agree with that as a carte blanche claim. I distinctly remember the last time it happened to me (and I had to put R1 back) and the catcher bobbled the exchange and took a step back instead of forward before he then stepped and threw. I was getting out of the way as hard as I could and his hand (actually more the ball) barely touched my mask. To be honest, I knew he didn't even know it happened, to which he later confessed and apologized. I really only called it because of, well, cameras. I'm just being honest and maybe I shouldn't be but it's the truth. It was a pretty high profile game and cameras and cell phone cameras were running everywhere. I knew I'd be criticized regardless so I erred on the side supported by rule. All that to say this. I disagree. It is not always us being too close. I see far too many guys missing outside corner pitches because they are simply too far away. I'll take my chances, and if it's on me, I'll own it, but I won't paint with a broad brush that I was in error because it happens.

The exception proves the rule...though it appears we may talk in absolutes we never do (see what I did there?).   There are always exceptions to otherwise correct "rules" to live by...it doesn't make them less true or less correct.

Seat belts save lives...except when they don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

If this happens to you, you're too close>  If F2 retires the runner after your interference, you owe him a hot dog after the game.

Its funny, the two times I have had this happen were with catchers with a very long throwing motion. And both times I could see it coming from watching them warm up. And both times I couldn't do much of anything to prevent it 

6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

...though it appears we may talk in absolutes we never do (see what I did there?). 

Wait... didn't a wise space wizard once state "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

Wait... didn't a wise space wizard once state "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"?

NO!!!!  That was a conclusion I drew from MY perception.  I REFUSE TO and absolutely (There is another absolute) WILL not change my moniker to Dark_AA or Lord_AA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I have to agree that "too close" isn't necessarily true.  I say this, especially more recently, as clinics are teaching us to really get-up into the catchers business :nod: 

I would agree that would apply in the wedge concept (for example), but I don't necessarily agree when in the slot.

Can you give more examples and reasoning that these clinics are teaching regarding getting "up into the catchers business"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I've been guilty of INT before and enforced it.  Sucks, but I learned from it.  I examined the rule and 2-21-2 says: 

"It is umpire interference when he inadvertently moves as to hinder a catcher's throw........"  FED is the only code with that definition and it does differ from the previous citation in this post, so it throws a completely different dynamic into enforcement.  

With that said, is it reasonable to judge in FED whether you went into the catcher, or the catcher came into you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, humanbackstop19 said:

I've been guilty of INT before and enforced it.  Sucks, but I learned from it.  I examined the rule and 2-21-2 says: 

"It is umpire interference when he inadvertently moves as to hinder a catcher's throw........"  FED is the only code with that definition and it does differ from the previous citation in this post, so it throws a completely different dynamic into enforcement.  

With that said, is it reasonable to judge in FED whether you went into the catcher, or the catcher came into you?

I hate everything about that wording.

It's not interference if the ump does it on purpose???

But no...section 2-21 is a definition of a term...the other citation is a rule applicable to an event...doesn't really matter what it's called or how it's defined...the rule says exactly what it is, and what to do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

I would agree that would apply in the wedge concept (for example), but I don't necessarily agree when in the slot.

Can you give more examples and reasoning that these clinics are teaching regarding getting "up into the catchers business"?

I was at a camp at the end of October, and that was the biggest thing I was sent home with.  (I had other pointers here and there - I certainly wasn't perfect - but this was the thing I was told to work on.)  And I was specifically told, by really getting in on the catcher, I'll be able to get the low strike more consistently and accurately.  So that's what I've worked on, in the few games I've had since.

(For background, this was a camp run by a college assigner in northern Texas (probably other places, too).  His camp "staff" was loaded with guys with D1 and pro experience, so *I'm* gonna defer to what they see/say.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

I was at a camp at the end of October, and that was the biggest thing I was sent home with.  (I had other pointers here and there - I certainly wasn't perfect - but this was the thing I was told to work on.)  And I was specifically told, by really getting in on the catcher, I'll be able to get the low strike more consistently and accurately.  So that's what I've worked on, in the few games I've had since.

(For background, this was a camp run by a college assigner in northern Texas (probably other places, too).  His camp "staff" was loaded with guys with D1 and pro experience, so *I'm* gonna defer to what they see/say.)

Yes .... this is what I've heard/been told also.  Getting close allows you to see the zone better.  And, yes, "super slot" is the term I've read, and heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I always understand the "super slot" concept was not MOVING UP in the slot. But actually SLIDING OVER in the slot so that you are almost behind the batter. Idea being (and always felt like a silly one if you ask me) was to look down through the zone to get that down and out pitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Answer this question...

×   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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Thunderheads
      Ouch .....
       
      and .....is the crew in the field wearing the new Cool base?  Is that what that jacket is?
       
      http://m.mlb.com/video/v83868283
    • By grayhawk
      I volunteered to proofread our Fed Study Guide and received it yesterday.  There is a question and I know the answer, but cannot find the correct rule cite.
       
      R1 is stealing when the catcher’s hits the umpire’s mask on the throw and the ball goes into center field. The runner tries for third and is thrown out by the center fielder.
       
      a.       Runner on 1st is returned to second.
      b.      Runner on 1st is called out if the umpire believes the interference prevented the catcher’s throw from retiring R1.
      c.       This is not umpire interference; the umpire is a part of the field. The play stands.
      d.      Since the initial throw by the catcher did not retire R1, umpire’s interference is enforced. The ball is dead. Return R1 to 1st base.
       
       
      I have "d" as the correct answer, but cannot find a rule that backs it up.  7-4-5 Penalty discusses what to do "when an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful" but cannot find similar language for when an umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to put out a runner.  Thanks.
    • Guest recrhett
      By Guest recrhett
      Weird home plate call tonight, please give advice or rule citations:
       
      After pitching a pitch, the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher as normal.  When pitcher starts to walk to the mound, the runner who is on 3B (leading off) tries to steal home while pitcher is walking back to the mound after receiving the ball from the catcher.
       
      Seeing this happen suddenly, the HP umpire pushed our catcher out of the way to get to the batter.  The umpire intentionally pulls/pushes the batter out of the box (batter really as no idea runner is coming home) as to make room for the runner who is attempting to steal home so there will not be an interference call.  In our league the batter must get out of the box when a runner is coming home or it is an automatic out.
       
      I believe that when the umpire pushes the catcher out of the way to get to the batter, it would fall under "Umpire Interference" in my opinion but would welcome any thoughts or rules.
      My main questions is where (if any) is it stated in the rule book that an umpire cannot intentionally touch a player (batter or runner)?  This clearly gave advantage to the offensive team by physically moving the batter so the runner is not called out.  Is there such a rule that deals with an umpire intentionally moving/helping/aiding a player?  Or a travesty of game rule to be cited?  I would love any input anyone has.  This was a 12yr old LL game.
      Thanks
      Long time ump and coach
      recrhett
       
×
×
  • Create New...