Bretman: Is Contact Essential for Interference??!!??

[default]

We had a call in the bottom of the 7th (we were visiting team, leading by two at the time) that broke our backs. Runner going from 1st to 2nd made contact with our fielder (unless she is lying to us, which I highly doubt) but whether there was contact or not she CLEARLY impeded the second baseperson's access to the ball. Blue made no interference call and when they conferred the only thing they asked each other was whether they saw contact.

Supplement No. 33 in the ASA rules (and it was an ASA tournament) says that a runner interferes with the fielder when she "impedes, hinders or confuses" a defensive player when attempting to execute a play. Right there, "confuses" suggests to us that physical contact is not necessary. And the next sentence says interference "may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play."

I know that in the law, when something "may" include a listed series of actions, that is a NON-EXCLUSIVE list, which is to say that the fact interference may consist of "physical contact" doesn't mean there HAS to be physical contact and the rest of the "may be"s in Supplement No. 33 make it pretty clear that there can be other types of distractions.

So: if the runner is directly in front of our second baseperson in the shortest path between our second baseperson and the ball (within maybe a 1.5 to 2 foot depth), can't that be interference because the fielder was obviously impeded in making the play?

Clearly with a play to the right side, we had a 95% shot at getting the runner. Instead, because the umpires fixated on whether there was contact, we ended up with no outs and runners on first and second.

The sad thing is, the lesson we learned, and we frankly have to tell our players, is that the fielder has to take out the runner in getting to the ball.

 

[default]

CGS,

Been down that road with Bretman. Contact is not necessary for the call to be made. I actually had an umpire tell me that I should tell my players to run over the runner. Are you kidding me? I'll let the expert give the official word, but very few umpires know this rule. The same umpire said that they're just 12U's, they don't know the difference.

 

[default]

We had same call during 1st game of pool play in Marysville. Player asked me if she had to hurt someone to get that call. Unfortunate.

 

[default]

We had a call in the bottom of the 7th (we were visiting team, leading by two at the time) that broke our backs. Runner going from 1st to 2nd made contact with our fielder (unless she is lying to us, which I highly doubt) but whether there was contact or not she CLEARLY impeded the second baseperson's access to the ball. Blue made no interference call and when they conferred the only thing they asked each other was whether they saw contact.

Supplement No. 33 in the ASA rules (and it was an ASA tournament) says that a runner interferes with the fielder when she "impedes, hinders or confuses" a defensive player when attempting to execute a play. Right there, "confuses" suggests to us that physical contact is not necessary. And the next sentence says interference "may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play."

I know that in the law, when something "may" include a listed series of actions, that is a NON-EXCLUSIVE list, which is to say that the fact interference may consist of "physical contact" doesn't mean there HAS to be physical contact and the rest of the "may be"s in Supplement No. 33 make it pretty clear that there can be other types of distractions.

So: if the runner is directly in front of our second baseperson in the shortest path between our second baseperson and the ball (within maybe a 1.5 to 2 foot depth), can't that be interference because the fielder was obviously impeded in making the play?

Clearly with a play to the right side, we had a 95% shot at getting the runner. Instead, because the umpires fixated on whether there was contact, we ended up with no outs and runners on first and second.

The sad thing is, the lesson we learned, and we frankly have to tell our players, is that the fielder has to take out the runner in getting to the ball.

So you told your players to possibly injure another player because of a poor call by blue? Please explain that logic?

 

[default]

We had the same situation today. Ball was hit to our 1st baseman and she was going to make the catch in fair territory and seen the runner coming directly at her and moved out of the way. We asked for interference, blue advised if the runner would have ran into our 1st baseman then it would have been interference but since our girl tried to avoid contact it was not. The field was lined with the runners lane. So according to this umpire we need to advise our players to make contact with the runner and RISK INJURY to get an interference call. Doesnt make sense to me.

 

[default]

We had same call during 1st game of pool play in Marysville. Player asked me if she had to hurt someone to get that call. Unfortunate.

We had that in the Marysville tournament and the Umpire told my dd that she needed to make contact with the runner to get the interference call on a ball that was 3' to her left. She asked: So you want me to run into her? His answer was "yes". I was personally amazed!

 

[default]

The logic is simple Fourts: Blue tells us we have to make contact, we have to make contact. If you have to make contact, the runner isn't going to make it to 2nd. That's what I mean by "take out". And that inherently means the risk of injury. You don't tell your players to slide hard into second to break up the double play? You don't tell your player to slide into home hard? You don't think those things don't involve possible injury to the offensive AND defensive players?

Once the umpire makes it clear what is or is not allowed, the coaches have to tell their players what to do. If the umpires say interference is allowed (an oxymoron) unless there is contact, are you saying that you are going to tell your fielder to avoid contact at all costs, or are you going to tell your player that in light of the umpire's interpretation your player has to go for the ball even if that means taking out the runner? I hardly call that telling a player to purposefully injure a base runner.

As I said, it is sad to tell a player that there is a situation where even though the rule allows for the play to continue without 1) detriment to the defense and 2) risk of injury to any player, the umpires won't call interference without contact. You show me, with statistical evidence, that umpires make the right call on this play even 80% of the time, and I'll consider telling our players to just let the runner interfere without our player going through the runner to get the ball, because Blue will get it right.

You tell me your method for creating contact without any risk of injuring the runner, and I'll use it. But I'm guessing your method can't guarantee contact plus no injury to the runner.

And just because you think I don't agree with you politically, that doesn't mean you can assume that I've told one of my players to intentionally injure another player. That's why politics screws up this site.

 

[default]

Most will only call it when there is contact even though the rule is pretty clear that if the fielder is impeded in any way by the runner it is interference. I have seen a few umpires call it correctly when there is no contact, however, then the team at bat's coach generally goes balistic.

 

[default]

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics till You brought it up! I questioned why you would tell a player to possibly injure another because blue can't get the call right. Isn't this two wrong don't make a right? I don't believe in winning at any cost, if a girl has to injure another to win do they really win?

 

[default]

The definition of "Interference" under ASA rule number 1 says it all:

"The act of an offensive player, or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary."

It's right there in the rule and definition of "Interference". Any umpire that tells you contact is a requirement of interference needs to get his nose in the rule book.

 

[default]

OK, Fourts, answer my questions about what you tell players about sliding hard and taking out players in that situation, and then tell me that you would tell a player on your team not to run into a player after Blue has made it clear there will be no interference call without contact. And then tell me how you made that post in response in such a short time period after your response on the politics issue and how that is all about not making two wrongs into a right and not about your political differences with my post on a non-softball thread. And how you accuse me of advocating a philosopy of "winning at any cost, if a girl has to injure another to win". I'm thinking you haven't had any experience as a coach in top flight travel ball and I know you've never seen the Buckeye Heat 95 take the position of winning at all costs, including not playing by the rules or by intentionallly injuring a player. If the players are playing WITHIN THE RULES AS INTERPRETED BY THE ASA UMPIRES AND WITH NO OBJECTIVE INDICATION OF PURPOSEFULLY INJURING ANOTHER PLAYER, then you have no business telling me that I am telling a player to injure another player when I've been told by Blue that they have to seek contact.

 

[default]

cgs...I'm surprised your even responding to unfounded comments...Most who see your teams play, know how you play....Intentional "taking out"...dont think so.

 

[default]

"The act of an offensive player, or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary."

I think (in my opinion) that this rule is meant for the players or coaches that intentionally try to cause a Defensive player to be confused or to misplay the ball....Like yelling at the top of their lungs "MISS IT" on a pop up, or standing in front of the grounder until the last second, then moving out of the way... Or the runner veering off toward the fielder attempting to make a play... I know this rule does not say that, but at what point can you say the runner scared the the fielder or hindered her. Her foot steps were loud and that impedes, hinders, or confuses the defensive player. Or because the runner was running close to the fielder that it impedes, hinders, or confuses the defensive player... or the runner was so fast that it impedes, hinders, or confuses the defensive player...

Bottom line is this rule without contact is not a coaches call, or the fielders call, it is after all an umpires judgment call, weather that the runners actions impedes, hinders, or confuses the defensive player without that contact...

 

[default]

Yes, it is a judgment call...as is every single other call in the game!

You can only hope that the umpire's judgment is based on some real concept of the actual playing rules and how they are interpreted. If he's telling you that contact is a requiremnt for an interference call, then his judgment is not grounded in any real rule and thus his judgment will be flawed.

In this case, the standard interpretation is that if a fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ball, then the offense must yield to that effort. If the defender is forced to alter her path to the ball due to the position of the runner then that is interference, even if, as the rule states, there is no contact.

Screaming at a fielder to, "Miss it!", or positioning yourself in her line of vision and waving your arms, are good examples of interference without contact. But they are not the only examples! The "contact not required" part of the rule also covers when a fielder who is playing the ball must must adjust her path or position to reach the ball because a member of the offensive team is in her way.

 

[default]

Read my post on Marysville. Cubsfan. I agree they were horrible this weekend in Marysville. At least our game was good. DD is stealing second base. Second base runs in front of her to slow her down , so she had to slide late. No interference called and she is called out. She asks umpire , he states not contact. Now I ask for help. Home Plate says he didn't see it. I ask them both about the contact comment and doesn't the rule state Impedes our runner. . They won't change the call. So now I get in trouble asking the above comment. So you are telling me that our runner must run into the kid , so you want someone hurt. That got me the " One more comment and you out of here". At end of game I have the rule book as they walk off field and now they admit they called it wrong. Just to clarify. Short stop took the throw.. Second base runs in front of the runner as she was going to slide.

 

[default]

SBFamily:

Your post makes the good point that this contact fixation can occur both in interference and obstruction situations.

 

[default]

They are going to get someone hurt, with this thinking. That was the point I was trying to make , when the Home Plate Umpire got this ( I'm the Boss and I don't care what the rules are) Attitude.

 

[default]

SBFAMILY and cgs,

I'm glad you brought up the other side of this issue. We are having to reposition our defensive players on steal covers nearly every game based on the umpires' interpretation of the obstruction rule.

Here is a perfect example that cost us the trophy in our own tournament last week (we lost the game by one run in extra innings):

Opponent attempts to steal third. Our SS positons herself outisde the bag (in foul territory), the throw skips past her into left field. The runner gets up from her slide and initiates contact with our fielder in foul territory before proceeding home. Our LF, backing up the play, throws a strike to our C and the runner is out by ten feet.

The blues brothers conferred for what seemed like ten minutes before announcing that the runner (who still has not touched home plate BTW) was to be awarded home becuase of obstruction on the part of the SS.

After coming out of the dugout ala George Brett, we were offered the lamest explanation I have ever heard. Allow me to paraphrase... "We saw the contact, the runner was clearly slowed by the contact (never acknowledging that it was initiated by the runner and occurred in foul territory), so there HAD to be obstruction. Sorry. We are doing the best we can."

Bretman, how do we get your brethern together on this?

 

[default]

OK, Fourts, answer my questions about what you tell players about sliding hard and taking out players in that situation, and then tell me that you would tell a player on your team not to run into a player after Blue has made it clear there will be no interference call without contact. And then tell me how you made that post in response in such a short time period after your response on the politics issue and how that is all about not making two wrongs into a right and not about your political differences with my post on a non-softball thread. And how you accuse me of advocating a philosopy of "winning at any cost, if a girl has to injure another to win". I'm thinking you haven't had any experience as a coach in top flight travel ball and I know you've never seen the Buckeye Heat 95 take the position of winning at all costs, including not playing by the rules or by intentionallly injuring a player. If the players are playing WITHIN THE RULES AS INTERPRETED BY THE ASA UMPIRES AND WITH NO OBJECTIVE INDICATION OF PURPOSEFULLY INJURING ANOTHER PLAYER, then you have no business telling me that I am telling a player to injure another player when I've been told by Blue that they have to seek contact.

cgs,This is your quote"The sad thing is, the lesson we learned, and we frankly have to tell our players, is that the fielder has to take out the runner in getting to the ball." That is what i'm commenting on you come on a softball forum and tell the world that you are telling your kids to take out another teams player. How do you think ANY parent is going to react if they here an opposing coach tell one of there girls to take out an opponent and it turns out that parent daughter gets hurt by that action? Maybe if you would have used better language than TAKE OUT it wouldn't be as offensive. Sliding hard isn't telling anyone to TAKE someone OUT.
I don't even know were you are coming from on the political issue, I can only disagree once a day, week or month?

 

[default]

You are right. I could have used better terminology. And I am glad that in thinking about what I actually said to the girls, I told them they had to make contact. Not sure that reduces the risk of injury any. As for the political stuff, I was more than a little ticked off that all I was asking for was a method to find new posts without having to wade through the political sub-forum and you got on accusing me of asking that posts I didn't agree with be withdrawn.