Umpire Interference

[mrumpiresir]

When does the ball become dead when the umpire interferes with the catcher trying to throw out a runner who is stealing?

[ATXBlue]

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.

[mrumpiresir]

Is the pro rule different?

[ATXBlue]

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.

 

[Aging_Arbiter]

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.

[mrumpiresir]

No, it didn't happen to me.  I know the rule I just needed to prove to an idiot who thinks it is an immediate dead ball.

[WilsonFlyer]

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.

[maven]

30 minutes ago, mrumpiresir said:

No, it didn't happen to me.  I know the rule I just needed to prove to an idiot who thinks it is an immediate dead ball.

That's the other kind.

[beerguy55]

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.

[BT_Blue]

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"?

[Aging_Arbiter]

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.

[Thunderheads]

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  

[Aging_Arbiter]

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  

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"?

 

[humanbackstop19]

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?

[beerguy55]

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.

[HokieUmp]

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.)

[noumpere]

It's the "super slot" that they started teaching several years ago.

[Thunderheads]

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.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Thanks!   I was unaware that this "super slot" was being taught.

[dumbdumb]

just for the historical "super slot" situation being taught purposes. It appeared here on April 10, 2015.

https://umpire-empire.com/topic/61398-the-super-slot/

 

 

[noumpere]

I'm sure it works for some.  It doesn't work for all.  Catchers I talked to (before I retired and a couple after) hated it.

[BT_Blue]

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.