High School rules interpretation, please.

[default]

'Saw at a HS game at Firestone last night:

Runner on first, batter hits a high pop-up near first base. First baseman, second, and RF all take off after the ball. Someone collides with the runner - who is still standing on first base. Ump calls runner on first out; "runner interference", because they didn't get out of the way. Seriously. I always thought the rule applied to base runners who are actually moving. Can a runner who is stationary - on a base - be called for interference? Fans of both teams thought Blue missed this one.

 

[default]

Wow! Pretty sure that a runner standing on a base in this situation doesn't have to get out of the way, so unless the ump thought that the runner purposefully interfered by moving into the fielder while still staying on base I'm not sure how that call can be made....

 

[default]

Why is it that we continue to have these threads that do nothing more than make me think that the OHSAA only accepts blue if they are deficient on common sense.

Every time I read another post about some moron that has no concept of what the rules are, it makes me want to start a school for umpires that teaches them to THINK.

I know Bretman is out there doing games and he has got to be the exception because we haven't had but one decent blue yet this year.

Cloning Bretman is the only solution to this dilemma.

 

[default]

A couple different rules might come into play here.

First, since there were three players chasing this ball, the umpire has to decide which one of them- and only one of them- had the opportunity to make the play. Only that single fielder gets protection from being interfered with. If one of the other fielders makes contact with the runner it can never be interference. Hard to tell from the description which one might have been the protected fielder or even which one contacted the runner.

But the main rule is this- a runner who is in contact with her base should not be called for interference unless she does something to intentionally interfere. Holding your base and standing still should not be considered as an intentional act of interference. Holding your base, but shifting your position to purposely put yourself in the fielder's path, or reaching out toward the fielder, or maybe even sticking out your foot could all be considered acts of interference.

Whether the runner intentionally interfered or not is a judgment call. There is no requirement for the runner to move out of the way, clear a path or leave the base to avoid the fielder.

 

[default]

Why is it that we continue to have these threads that do nothing more than make me think that the OHSAA only accepts blue if they are deficient on common sense.

Every time I read another post about some moron that has no concept of what the rules are, it makes me want to start a school for umpires that teaches them to THINK.

I know Bretman is out there doing games and he has got to be the exception because we haven't had but one decent blue yet this year.

Cloning Bretman is the only solution to this dilemma.

In all fairness, I would have to say...

- Some of these rules are fairly obscure and cover plays that might happen once every few seasons, if that. For instance, I don't believe that I have ever had to deal with a runner standing on a base being bumped into by a fielder in my entire career! But I have seen this play discussed at length on several internet umpire forums and that prompted me to look up the rule a long time ago.

Plays that rarely come up are more likely to result in blown calls, just from the fact that an umpire may have never had to deal with it before. Someone once said that 90% of the game is played using only 10% of the rule book and that seems about true. Ball/strike, fair/foul, catch/no catch, tag/no tag come up repetitiously, time and time again, and an umpire should get a good handle on those with experience. It is the more obscure rules that rarely come into play that seem to cause the most trouble.

- I do have the luxury of consulting a rule book when answering questions on the net. That can be altogether different than pulling a rule from your memory banks to make a split-second decision on the playing field.

There may be some of these that I might blow in "real time"- and some that I probably have! Whenever an umpire deals with a rule he's not familiar with during a game, he should make it a point to check his rule book after the game. That way, the chances of him getting it right the next time go way up.

One of the reasons that I like answering rule related questions is that, in the long run, I feel that it will make me a better official. The more times you discuss a rule and understand it's intent and meaning, the greater the chance you will "get it right" out on the field. For about ten years I've participated on-line in a half-dozen different umpire forums and have seen just about every possible rule discussed, disected and debated. This has probably taught me more about the rules and umpiring than all of the classes and clinics I've attended combined.

And all this time you thought that I was educating you, you were really educating ME!

- I can't help but wonder what percentage of calls are really blown. How many calls do you think an umpire makes in a single game? How many thousands of games are played each season? What if people started posting about every single call that their umpires got right? There would be thousands of posts, but they wouldn't be nearly as much fun to read!

- If you clone me, do you think that you could get the clone to pay my taxes?

 

[default]

Plays that rarely come up are more likely to result in blown calls, just from the fact that an umpire may have never had to deal with it before. Someone once said that 90% of the game is played using only 10% of the rule book and that seems about true. Ball/strike, fair/foul, catch/no catch, tag/no tag come up repetitiously, time and time again, and an umpire should get a good handle on those with experience. It is the more obscure rules that rarely come into play that seem to cause the most trouble.

This makes perfect sense, but yet it is very little consolation for a blown call. I could not get buy only being proficient at 10% of my job, I have to be ready for anything at the drop of a hat.

I can't help but wonder what percentage of calls are really blown. How many calls do you think an umpire makes in a single game? How many thousands of games are played each season? What if people started posting about every single call that their umpires got right? There would be thousands of posts, but they wouldn't be nearly as much fun to read!

If you bring in every judgment call the percentage would be low. If we just covered incorrect rule interpretations I would really bank on a high percentage of blown calls. You're right though, they wouldn't be as much fun.

Last year as a TD (ASA) I made a point to discuss many of the more obscure rules and rule changes with the UIC and blue crew prior to games and we discovered quite a few rules that were written differently in the umpires rulebook versus the coaches rulebook. It turned out that there were also many different interpretations/understandings of many of the rules. So I made a point that all blue be on the same page (with me as TD) on how many of the vague rules would be interpreted/enforced.

If you clone me, do you think that you could get the clone to pay my taxes?

We'll have to work on that. LoL

 

[default]

Once again, bretman brings up an excellent point. While I may have been known to not 100% agree with him about an interpretation or 2, the vast majority of the time I learn something or reinforce something from these discussions. If nothing else, it makes me read the rule book more often. Being fairly new at umpiring, I need all the reading I can get.

For instance, on this particular play, my recollection said the runner on a base is protected from interference unless it is intentional. Seeing it discussed reinforced the rule and makes it even less likely for me to get it wrong if it ever comes up.

The two biggest things I have learned since I started umpiring is 1) It's a lot easier to make a judgement call from the bench when you have a vested interest in how it comes out and 2) Coaches REALLY need to read the rule book! But that is entirely beside the point here. ;&

 

[default]

3DM,

Just picking on things, I'm sure at your job you at some point have been confronted with a new situation/problem that may be been just new or even obscure. Hopefully you were taught how to deal with it while it happened by an experienced individual, to better prepare you for when/if it happens again, rather than getting run through the ringer by your boss. We become better professionals through experience. Can't learn it all in a book or manual over night.

 

[default]

First, since there were three players chasing this ball, the umpire has to decide which one of them- and only one of them- had the opportunity to make the play. Only that single fielder gets protection from being interfered with. If one of the other fielders makes contact with the runner it can never be interference. ...

Thanks for covering this aspect. That is my recollection from baseball and I couldn't find it in the softball rules.

But the main rule is this- a runner who is in contact with her base should not be called for interference unless she does something to intentionally interfere. Holding your base and standing still should not be considered as an intentional act of interference. Holding your base, but shifting your position to purposely put yourself in the fielder's path, or reaching out toward the fielder, or maybe even sticking out your foot could all be considered acts of interference.

I realize ASA rules don't apply in the OP, but would you please explain what constitutes a legally occupied base as referenced in ASA Rules Supplement #33.A.1.c? At what point does a runner on 1B lose rights to the base?

Doesn't the umpire also have to determine the ball was catchable?

 

[default]

The runner on first legally occupies the base up until the batter-runner safely reaches it.

Yes, the ball must be catchable before you can rule a catch was interfered with.

 

[default]

The runner on first legally occupies the base up until the batter-runner safely reaches it.

Thanks bretman!

 

[default]

3DM,

Just picking on things, I'm sure at your job you at some point have been confronted with a new situation/problem that may be been just new or even obscure. Hopefully you were taught how to deal with it while it happened by an experienced individual, to better prepare you for when/if it happens again, rather than getting run through the ringer by your boss. We become better professionals through experience. Can't learn it all in a book or manual over night.

There is a bit of a difference between the mechanics of the job and the knowledge of it. Please don't get me wrong, I don't expect anyone to be perfect and I am far from it myself. :cap:

As I stated earlier, I can never fault someone on a judgment call. I just expect that if you accept a job, (umpiring) that you ensure that you know the rules and the interpretations (casebook) of them.