Umpire rant!!!

[Fairman]

I went to the Mandatory coaches meetings run by the umpires to review the rules and one we spent some time on was obstruction/interference.

First game:

My runner at second runs into the shortstop on a hit to outfield and both Umpires didn't see it even though the ball was on the grass behind the collision. She ended up at third but could have come home.

Later my shortstop gets blown-up by a runner while attempting to field a ball. We tagged out that runner at 3rd, the run scored and the batter/runner ended up on 1st. I argued interference, dead ball runner out, with runners put back to 1st and 3rd. The umpire tells me that the runner has the right to the baseline........no call. How do you argue with that logic?

The rule is designed to protect the players so that softball doesn't become hockey.

Made at least a two run difference in the game.

Why bother wasting my time discussing rules when the umpires are just making s--t up?

 

[coachjwb]

This was in a varsity high school game with 2 umpires I assume?

 

[BretMan2]

First one: If they didn't see it, then they didn't see. Can't rule on something you didn't see, so that wouldn't be "making stuff up".

Having said that...one of them should have seen it! That's part of their job.

Second one: Now that's "making stuff up". The fielder has the right of way when fielding a batted ball...period.

This is such a gross misinterpretation of the rule that, if I was the coach, I'd probably contact the umpire's assignor to let them know about it.

 

[Fairman]

Yes this is a PIAA High School Game with 2 umpires.

I'm more afraid of fallout than teaching these guys the rules. If I go over their head I'm sure that will get around and my team will be punished either by them or their buddies. These are experienced umpires with some years of experience between them. I might have already crossed that line when I was arguing way to passionately for my own good. When it became obvious that they hadn't attended the same training I did (or slept through it) I should have just walked away and hope I don't see them assigned to my games.

 

[coachjwb]

As BretMan says, the second situation, as you described it, sounds just blatantly wrong, and that rule has always been the rule for as long as I've been coaching baseball and softball (30+ years) ... so it's not just a matter of missing or sleeping through some recent training, and you say they are experienced umps. Can I ask where the ball was at when the collision occurred ... was it on the ground or in the air, and was it immediately in front of the fielder or where?

 

[BretMan2]

I'm more afraid of fallout than teaching these guys the rules. If I go over their head I'm sure that will get around and my team will be punished either by them or their buddies.

So, a lack of rule knowledge coupled with a lack of professional integrity. Sorry to hear you have umpires like that.

Can I ask where the ball was at when the collision occurred ... was it on the ground or in the air, and was it immediately in front of the fielder or where?

This is a good point. There are some circumstances where this might have kinda-sorta been the right call, even though you got a really bad explanation.

IF...another fielder had an opportunity to field the ball besides the shortstop, then that other fielder would have the protection from being interfered with, not the shortstop. Only one fielder at a time gets that protection, since only one of them can be considered as in the act of fielding the ball.

Another IF...if the ball was far enough away from the shortstop that she had no reasonable chance of getting to it, then that wouldn't be interference, either.

In either of those cases, if it wasn't interference against the runner, then it should have been obstruction against the fielder!

 

[Fairman]

The hit was a weak grounder between ss and second. The field was very slow and the ball was dying.
I don't think that the ball got to the outfield grass because the ss was able to get to it and throw out the runner at third.

My ss has great range and in my opinion this was a routine play for her.
If the umpire had said that 'it was too far away from the ss to be able to field, in my opinion' then I would have had no beef but that wasn't what he hung his hat on.

The hit did get past the pitcher but the pitcher is exempt from the opportunity rule and she never touched it.

 

[BretMan2]

The hit did get past the pitcher but the pitcher is exempt from the opportunity rule and she never touched it.

No, the pitcher isn't exempt on this one. She is considered a fielder who may have the opportunity to field the batted ball.

The rule you're probably thinking of is the one about a runner being hit by a batted ball before it passes a fielder. For that rule, the pitcher is exempt as one of the fielders.

 

[Fairman]

There were two legit explanations that would have sent me back to the dugout.

It was to far from the ss to make a routine play.
or
The pitcher had a chance at the ball and the ss was the second chance.
(in which case he should have called my ss for obstruction and awarded third base to the runner?)