Umpire interference?

[Richvee]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1014409667064470?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw
 

Umpire interference?  
OBR and NCAA both mention when a catcher is hindered attempting a throw on a stolen base or pick off attempt. 
FED just says “on a throw”. 
Rules difference?  

[Velho]

Don't have my resources handy but isn't there an exception for a wild pitch/passed ball?* In practice, don't we only see PU INT on a caught pitched ball F2 then tries to throw out a runner?

* If not, since I haven't called PU INT on all those balls off my mask, shins, and painful parts, then I want RBI credits for my next contract negotiation.

[grayhawk]

How can he call interference on himself when he's not looking at what's happening? Chest to ball!!!

[Velho]

Forgot I have LL RIM (not worth much to some, I know)

[Realizing now @Richvee may have simply been trolling LOL]

[Richvee]

11 minutes ago, Velho said:

In practice, don't we only see PU INT on a caught pitched ball F2 then tries to throw out a runner?

I would tend to agree. The clip made me look at the three rules. I found it interesting FED doesn't mention Pick off attempt or passed ball like OBR and NCAA. So would FED want UI here? 

 

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

I would tend to agree. The clip made me look at the three rules. I found it interesting FED doesn't mention Pick off attempt or passed ball like OBR and NCAA. So would FED want UI here?

It's a fair question for sure--but I can't say that I've ever seen a situation where it would be called for FED (other than the OP, of course).

As to the video, I'm trying to figure out what in the world the PU was doing. Looks like he was trying to clear the catcher to the batter's side around the front of the plate (interesting choice), then backs up--all without putting his eyes on where the ball might be.

As an aside, how many of us put our hand on the back of the catcher? Personally, I don't like it--but others' mileage may vary.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

I would tend to agree. The clip made me look at the three rules. I found it interesting FED doesn't mention Pick off attempt or passed ball like OBR and NCAA. So would FED want UI here? 

 

I’m confused … are we saying since it is a passed ball that there is not/cannot be UI?

Seemed like UI to me, so what am I missing?

 

[Richvee]

20 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’m confused … are we saying since it is a passed ball that there is not/cannot be UI?

Seemed like UI to me, so what am I missing?

 

  NCAA and OBR specifically state UI is interfering with a throw by the catcher on a pick off attempt or to retire a runner who is stealing, the OP is advancing on a wild pitch/ passed ball. FED simply states “interferes with a catcher’s throw.

Is there a rules difference here?  

[The Man in Blue]

52 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

As to the video, I'm trying to figure out what in the world the PU was doing. Looks like he was trying to clear the catcher to the batter's side around the front of the plate (interesting choice), then backs up--all without putting his eyes on where the ball might be.

As an aside, how many of us put our hand on the back of the catcher? Personally, I don't like it--but others' mileage may vary.

Looks to me like the catcher was already turning right and rolling out, so PU stepped forward.  Because of the ricochet, the catcher didn’t end up going much of anywhere, and train wreck ensues.

Based on how quickly that unfolded and how quickly the ball came back, I would venture a guess that the backstop is EXTREMELY short.  I agree PU should have been tracking, but he may not have had a chance.  There is a complex I work like this.  It’s like playing baseball on a racquet ball court.

Carry over from my softball days … no, never touch a player.

[The Man in Blue]

12 minutes ago, Richvee said:

  NCAA and OBR specifically state UI is interfering with a throw by the catcher on a pick off attempt or to retire a runner who is stealing, the OP is advancing on a wild pitch/ passed ball. FED simply states “interferes with a catcher’s throw.

Is there a rules difference here?  

There were runners advancing (or at least one advancing to third).  Is that not an opportunity to retire a runner?

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

I would tend to agree. The clip made me look at the three rules. I found it interesting FED doesn't mention Pick off attempt or passed ball like OBR and NCAA. So would FED want UI here? 

Guys, Umpiring 101.  1) Who caused the problem? 2) Are we asking the umpire to "disappear." so he won't interfere?  I've got nothing.

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’m confused … are we saying since it is a passed ball that there is not/cannot be UI?

That’s what the LL RIM is saying. 
 

 

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, Richvee said:

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’m confused … are we saying since it is a passed ball that there is not/cannot be UI?

That’s what the LL RIM is saying. 

Thank goodness it does. Near every LL field has backstops like that. One field I know well I don't move on a high velocity straight ball through my legs because I know it will be coming right back through my legs on the rebound. Moving would be worse.

 

With resources in hand (note: as a poor poor poor mans Sr. Azul):

2021 MiLB Manual is silent. J/R has one page:

Umpire interference occurs when (NFHS 5-1-1h] the plate umpire contacts and hinders a catcher's throw during a pickoff, steal, or return toss (see Chapter 13-1, Interference Without a Play) to the pitcher. [DEF-Interference c1] [5.06c2 and Comment)(6.01f Comment 1]

 

A pickoff is an action initiated by the defense: a pitcher's throw from the mound or a catcher's throw after a pitch not batted, trying to retire a runner at his TOP base.

A steal is an action initiated by the offense: a runner's try during or just after a pitch not batted, trying to acquire his advance base.

 

If the catcher's throw immediately and directly results in the runner being out, the interference is disregarded. If not, time is imposed and all runners must return to their last base legally touched before the interference. Hence, if a rundown or subsequent throw after the catcher's throw is required to retire a runner, the ball is dead and the interference is enforced.

EG: R1, left handed batter. After receiving a pitch, the catcher twists to throw a pickoff to first base. Despite bumping the mask of the umpire, the catcher throws to a fielder at first. The runner

(1) returns, but is tagged after oversliding first base, or returns and is called out for being out of his base path: in either case he is out, the interference disregarded.

(2) finds himself unable to return to first and accepts a rundown, or advances toward second: time is imposed, the interference enforced, the runner must return to first.

any umpire is touched by a fair batted ball [DEF-Interference c2] (5.05a4] [5.05b4] [5.06b3B] (5.06c6] |6.01f Comment 2], unless such ball

(1) has passed a fringe infielder (see Chapter 2-H) or

(2) has already touched any fielder.

If a batted ball is umpire interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base and forced runners their advance base; other runners must return to their TOP base. If a fair batted ball touches an umpire but is not umpire interference, the ball is live. If a thrown or pitched ball touches an umpire, the ball is live.

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’m confused … are we saying since it is a passed ball that there is not/cannot be UI?

Seemed like UI to me, so what am I missing?

 

Didn't watch the video (facebook), but FED has specific cases / interps that UI does not apply once the ball moves away from the catcher.

 

UI is a recognition that F2 and the umpire work in close proximity and during a play when both are doing everything right, the umpire can cause a disruption.

[Richvee]

OK. I’ve convinced  myself(with the help of some posts) this is not UI. The more I think about it, this is no different than U1 in “C” getting in the way of a throw from F5 or 6. 

[johnnyg08]

Oh great...they're just going to start throwing at us now. 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

OK. I’ve convinced  myself(with the help of some posts) this is not UI. The more I think about it, this is no different than U1 in “C” getting in the way of a throw from F5 or 6. 

I'm going the other way . . . and yes, this is injecting my interpretation into a portion of this . . . 

I understand the codes that dismiss the potential UI on a passed ball.  I'm not saying they are wrong.  I am saying: It is safe to assume on the vast majority of fields, the catcher is having to leave his position to chase down a passed ball.  Leaving UI in place when the catcher has gone mobile does not make sense.  This rule though was not written for this circumstance. 

In this case, the catcher moves, but is essentially in his original position to throw.  To me, it makes no sense to dismiss the potential for UI with this backstop because it is not what the rule was written to prevent (a catcher deliberately moving so the umpire is in the throwing lane, as @johnnyg08 points out).  The umpire moves into a traditional throwing lane that the catcher is attempting to throw from.  That catcher had a play and was attempting a throw.  Seems pretty textbook to me.

Yes, the field sucks.  Yes, you could be "that guy" and just shrug and say the field sucks, you should have caught the ball, just don't feel like it . . . but in the end, UI is the right call within the spirit of the game here.  That catcher had a play and was attempting a throw.  It isn't like you are calling anybody out.  You are just sending the runners back to try again because you interfered with the play.

Before you make the "should have caught it" argument, I will point out the rules do not automatically award bases for poor play, so why would you?  Don't be that guy who thinks it is his job to punish poor play.

[The Man in Blue]

17 hours ago, noumpere said:

Didn't watch the video (facebook), but FED has specific cases / interps that UI does not apply once the ball moves away from the catcher.

 

UI is a recognition that F2 and the umpire work in close proximity and during a play when both are doing everything right, the umpire can cause a disruption.

 You missed the last portion . . . 

" . . . the umpire can cause a disruption that the offense should not benefit from."

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm going the other way . . . and yes, this is injecting my interpretation into a portion of this . . . 

 

That convinces me that "no UI" is the correct call.   You might want it to be different and to apply in the OP, but it doesn't.

Here's one FED interp (emphasis added).:

SITUATION 11: No outs and no runners on base when the batter swings and misses strike three that is in the dirt. As the batter-runner takes off for first, the catcher moves to pick up the ball and throw it to the first baseman. Meanwhile, the plate umpire has also moved to see the resulting action better and inadvertently interferes with the catcher’s throw, which sails to the outfield. The batter-runner advances to second base. RULING: It is only umpire interference if the act is specifically identified as umpire interference in the rules. By rule, it is umpire interference 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. Any other occasion where an umpire hinders a play is to be considered incidental contact. The intent of the rule for umpire interference by a plate umpire is to prevent the possibility of interference where a catcher is trying to throw immediately after a pitch, and the umpire has to be in position to see that pitch, and there is contact. In this play, it is incidental contact and the result of the play shall stand. (2-21-2, 8-3-6)

 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

That convinces me that "no UI" is the correct call.   You might want it to be different and to apply in the OP, but it doesn't.

Here's one FED interp (emphasis added).:

SITUATION 11: No outs and no runners on base when the batter swings and misses strike three that is in the dirt. As the batter-runner takes off for first, the catcher moves to pick up the ball and throw it to the first baseman. Meanwhile, the plate umpire has also moved to see the resulting action better and inadvertently interferes with the catcher’s throw, which sails to the outfield. The batter-runner advances to second base. RULING: It is only umpire interference if the act is specifically identified as umpire interference in the rules. By rule, it is umpire interference 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. Any other occasion where an umpire hinders a play is to be considered incidental contact. The intent of the rule for umpire interference by a plate umpire is to prevent the possibility of interference where a catcher is trying to throw immediately after a pitch, and the umpire has to be in position to see that pitch, and there is contact. In this play, it is incidental contact and the result of the play shall stand. (2-21-2, 8-3-6)

 

Great find. Thanks

Another poorly written FED rule. Why not say this in the rule and not just "interfere with a catcher's throw" 

[johnnyg08]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Great find. Thanks

Another poorly written FED rule. Why not say this in the rule and not just "interfere with a catcher's throw" 

Because pine tar is really important. 

[MadMax]

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I will point out the rules do not automatically award bases for poor play, so why would you?  Don't be that guy who thinks it is his job to punish poor play.

So why are you being that guy that absolves poor play? 

Look, I was a catcher for awhile before becoming an umpire, and I knew – full well – that if I let a ball get away from me (or, if my 🤬 pitcher threw one outside my reach), any impedance by the umpire was off the table. I cannot count on him to move or pivot out of the way; similarly, I couldn’t expect him not to move, further propelling the loose ball away from me, or tangoing with me as I was trying to reach the ball just… past… him! 

Besides, you even pointed out… 

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

To me, it makes no sense to dismiss the potential for UI with this backstop because it is not what the rule was written to prevent

Oh, so we’re supposed to dismiss lodged ball in a backstop – on this backstop, with netting that curls just by speaking to it, and chock full of holes – just because most other backstops have good integrity, and far fewer lodged balls, if ever? 

Common sense and fair play. Common sense… 

22 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Oh great...they're just going to start throwing at us now. 

Careful, Icarus… I know this from being a hockey Linesman, that defenders will often aim for us at our position at the blue line, and try to put the puck off us so it clears the zone, but is dampened to not go too far down-ice and become icing. 😬🫣

[MadMax]

14 hours ago, Richvee said:

Another poorly written FED rule. Why not say this in the rule and not just "interfere with a catcher's throw"

I swear, it’s because the NFHS Rules are printed via lithography (ie. etched in stone), or the press plates were set by Gutenberg himself, FCOL!! 

Heaven forbid you actually update the language, terminology, and phrasing! 

#GetWithTheTimes #WeUseElectricityNow!

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/29/2024 at 8:58 PM, MadMax said:

So why are you being that guy that absolves poor play? 

I am not.  I am saying we should not get involved in poor play either direction.  The rule does not say "punish the catcher for missing it" (too many umpires already do that by refusing to call uncaught strikes).  Let the play happen.  If the point of the rule (not the letter) is to prevent the umpire from impeding the catcher in the catcher's position, why do we care where the ball went before that?  If the catcher catches the ball and throws from his position or if the ball ricochets back to him and the throws from that same spot, we have the same play, so why do I care?  Now . . . if he leaves and comes back (the point of the rule) that is different.  (If you want to argue he left and came back close to the same position, I would buy that.)

On 6/29/2024 at 8:58 PM, MadMax said:

Look, I was a catcher for awhile before becoming an umpire, and I knew – full well – that if I let a ball get away from me (or, if my 🤬 pitcher threw one outside my reach), any impedance by the umpire was off the table. I cannot count on him to move or pivot out of the way; similarly, I couldn’t expect him not to move, further propelling the loose ball away from me, or tangoing with me as I was trying to reach the ball just… past… him! 

I agree and had the same experience.  I'm assuming this is going back to the point I made above about discerning between a "moving" play and a "stationary" play.  I don't disagree with those concepts, but I guess I'm looking at the position of the catcher, not what put him there.  The concept of the rule is that once the play goes mobile, the catcher has no expectation of a clear lane.  I'm saying the play didn't actually go mobile, even if you apply a scorekeeper's terminology to it.

On 6/29/2024 at 8:58 PM, MadMax said:

Oh, so we’re supposed to dismiss lodged ball in a backstop – on this backstop, with netting that curls just by speaking to it, and chock full of holes – just because most other backstops have good integrity, and far fewer lodged balls, if ever? 

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything or what the logic would be.  My point is not based on the backstop itself, but the result of what happened -- maybe that is where I am going astray.  (Granted, that is a result of the backstop.)  I'm saying that writing the rule based on the assumption of a standard backstop is more problematic than writing it based on the catcher's actions.

[Tborze]

 

@Richvee Or RF!