Skip to main content

These calls occured in a 11U travel game. First call was runner on second SS ran run out play breaking in front of runner with 2B breaking to bag on a inside move the runner tackles the SS (one of our coaches heard their coach tell his kids to do this before the game they had seen us run it earlier) the base umpire calls him out on the tag but the plate umpire over rules and calls interfernce on the SS awarding the runner 3rd. What is the proper call? Later the same plate umpire makes this call. Runners on 1st and 3rd the pitcher tries to fake move to third pick at first play the runner on first does not dive back recognizing the play on the throw to first it hits the runner in the back of his helmet and reflects into RF the plate umpire rules dead ball on the hit runner and returns the runner to third. But he is not finished a pitched balls hits the dirt about 1-3 inches from the batters foot and as the batter tries to hop the pitch it hits his cleats a bounces off with a runner advancing on the pitch he rules it is not a HBP because it hit the ground before it hit the batter. I may be way off but this guy has no business behind the plate.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This umpire struck out. He got every situation wrong.
  • First of all, interference is called on the offence, obstruction is called on the defence.(Don't pay attention to Tim McCarver, he doesnot know the rules) I'm not clear on your explaination, but based on my interpetation, the fielder has the right to field the ball, if the base runner "tackles" the SS, that is malicious contact and the baserunner is out and eject.
  • Live ball, end of story
  • Ball hits dirt, batter made an effort to get out of the way, ball hits batter, dead ball. Batter awarded 1st base, all others runners return to base at time of pitch.
  • Last edited by Pirate Fan
    Certainly the last two calls are wrong, as desribed. I'm not so sure about the first one.
    quote:
    First call was runner on second SS ran run out play breaking in front of runner with 2B breaking to bag on a inside move

    If I'm reading this right, the shortstop runs in front of the baserunner while the second baseman covers the bag. The throw goes to the second baseman as the runner collides with the shortstop (?) If I'm reading this right, I'm not so sure that obstruction isn't the right call. But it's hard to tell from the post...
    P-dog, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe I'm not visualizing this correctly. If we are talking about F6 making a fielding attempt and getting tackled then I'm in agreement with Piratefan and Bluezebra.

    However if this is some sort of tactic to impede the runner by F6 while the throw goes to the F4 then we 'd have obstruction.

    Its just a bit unclear as stated.
    I have to admit, I took the "tackled" comment with a grain of salt. I would say, however, that I want a baserunner who is blocked from a bag he's going to by a fielder who doesn't have the ball to run into that fielder. That's a hard lesson to teach to kids (these were 11 year olds) as they instinctively shrink from a collision. If I'm reading this post to indicate that the poster's team has a designed play where the SS runs in front of a baserunner at 2nd while the 2B is covering for the pickoff throw, and I knew about it, I'd coach my players to run into the SS, too.
    quote:
    Originally posted by P-Dog:
    I have to admit, I took the "tackled" comment with a grain of salt. I would say, however, that I want a baserunner who is blocked from a bag he's going to by a fielder who doesn't have the ball to run into that fielder.

    "INTERFERENCE. Runner's out, and other runners return to previous base(s)". If I determine it's malicious (and I probably would), EJECTION. And if I heard you tell this to a runner, you'd join him in the parking lot.

    That's a hard lesson to teach to kids (these were 11 year olds) as they instinctively shrink from a collision. If I'm reading this post to indicate that the poster's team has a designed play where the SS runs in front of a baserunner at 2nd while the 2B is covering for the pickoff throw,

    "THAT'S OBSTRUCTION".

    and I knew about it, I'd coach my players to run into the SS, too.


    Then you'd be teaching something illegal and dangerous. If a player were injured because of this, you'd be in court faced with a large liabilty suit. And possibly the criminal charge of child endangerment.
    Last edited by bluezebra
    The play in question is a set play many teams run. The SS holds the runner the pitcher looks back then home when he raises his leg the SS breaks to his position in front of the runner this leads the runner to follow the SS the pitcher then turns with an inside move to the 2B covering the bag. The SS clears on out with a slide movement just passing in front of the runner but on this play the runner grabed the SS and took him to the ground. And as I previously stated we over heard their coach telling them to do this. This play works time and time again sometimes twice in the same game once both times on the same player.
    quote:
    Originally posted by stinger:
    The play in question is a set play many teams run. The SS holds the runner the pitcher looks back then home when he raises his leg the SS breaks to his position in front of the runner this leads the runner to follow the SS the pitcher then turns with an inside move to the 2B covering the bag. The SS clears on out with a slide movement just passing in front of the runner but on this play the runner grabed the SS and took him to the ground. And as I previously stated we over heard their coach telling them to do this. This play works time and time again sometimes twice in the same game once both times on the same player.


    The way you describe this, you're dealing with blind and/or dumb umpires.
    quote:
    Then you'd be teaching something illegal and dangerous. If a player were injured because of this, you'd be in court faced with a large liabilty suit. And possibly the criminal charge of child endangerment.



    Whoa, BZ, back on the meds, quick! Contact between players happens in 'most every game. Tag play at the plate, rundowns, you name it. Generally no one gets hurt. I try to teach players to assert their right to the place on the field they have the right to occupy, and not be intimidated into failing to make the play by an opposing player who impinges on that right. Examples: batted ball toward shortstop, with a player running from second. Young SS will frequently back off and fail to charge the ball, to avoid contact with the baserunner. That's bad baseball. Make the runner avoid contact - it's his responsibility. Same principle when a defensive player obstructs a baserunner's path. The runner should not allow himself to be diverted (and likely put out) because a fielder fails to allow him his path when he has a right to it. That's not to say (and doesn't imply to the calm among us) that the baserunner should try to hurt the fielder. That's unnecesary and counter-productive. Ideally, the runner should have arms out, pushing the fielder out of the way (and doing it as obviously as possible) while never conceding the path to the base. It's legal, and no more dangerous than any other part of the game.
    And that's why I take the OP's description with a grain of salt. I'm familiar with the play he describes. If it's done right, there won't be any contact between the runner and the SS. But there's a temptation for the SS to cut it close, since many baserunners will hesitate to run into him, which increases the success ratio of the play.
    If the SS does "linger" in the basepath, and the baserunners execute their job properly, there will be contact, and it will be initiated with the runner's arms pushing the shortstop. Which sounds a lot like what happened in this game.
    Whenever somebody posts a situation and complains about an ump's call, I try to look for a way in which the ump could have been right. Generally the poster isn't going to highlight the details which might lead to that analysis, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise.
    Last edited by P-Dog
    quote:
    Originally posted by P-Dog:
    quote:
    Then you'd be teaching something illegal and dangerous. If a player were injured because of this, you'd be in court faced with a large liabilty suit. And possibly the criminal charge of child endangerment.



    Whoa, BZ, back on the meds, quick! Contact between players happens in 'most every game. Tag play at the plate, rundowns, you name it. Generally no one gets hurt. I try to teach players to assert their right to the place on the field they have the right to occupy, and not be intimidated into failing to make the play by an opposing player who impinges on that right. Examples: batted ball toward shortstop, with a player running from second. Young SS will frequently back off and fail to charge the ball, to avoid contact with the baserunner. That's bad baseball. Make the runner avoid contact - it's his responsibility. Same principle when a defensive player obstructs a baserunner's path. The runner should not allow himself to be diverted (and likely put out) because a fielder fails to allow him his path when he has a right to it. That's not to say (and doesn't imply to the calm among us) that the baserunner should try to hurt the fielder. That's unnecesary and counter-productive. Ideally, the runner should have arms out, pushing the fielder out of the way (and doing it as obviously as possible) while never conceding the path to the base. It's legal, and no more dangerous than any other part of the game.
    And that's why I take the OP's description with a grain of salt. I'm familiar with the play he describes. If it's done right, there won't be any contact between the runner and the SS. But there's a temptation for the SS to cut it close, since many baserunners will hesitate to run into him, which increases the success ratio of the play.
    If the SS does "linger" in the basepath, and the baserunners execute their job properly, there will be contact, and it will be initiated with the runner's arms pushing the shortstop. Which sounds a lot like what happened in this game.
    Whenever somebody posts a situation and complains about an ump's call, I try to look for a way in which the ump could have been right. Generally the poster isn't going to highlight the details which might lead to that analysis, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise.


    The original situation did not describe legitimate contact, such as on a legal slide. F6, NOT making a play on a batted ball, INTENTIONALLY hindered the runner, who tackled him. Any umpire who doesn't first call "obstruction" on F6, and then "malicious contact and unsportsmanlike conduct" on the runner for TACKLING F6, should find another avocation, because he either doesn't know the rules, and/or is too chicken to call these infractions.

    Any "coach" who teaches his runners to shove an infielder in his path is guilty of teaching illegal tactics, and should join those "chicken" blues somewhere away from working with youth.

    Read the rule books and case books, and learn what "obstruction", "interference" and "malicious contact" are. You will probably be surprised, and you might even learn something.

    I don't know where in California you live, but it's certainly not in area I worked, where umpires ae taught not to allow these illegalactions to go unpunished.
    C'mon, Bluezebra! I know you're out there - you've posted since I asked for instruction here! You've told me I'll be sued and/or arrested for what I coach, and elaborated with this:

    quote:
    Any "coach" who teaches his runners to shove an infielder in his path is guilty of teaching illegal tactics, and should join those "chicken" blues somewhere away from working with youth.

    Read the rule books and case books, and learn what "obstruction", "interference" and "malicious contact" are. You will probably be surprised, and you might even learn something.


    So I'm trying to learn: What should a baserunner confronted with a fielder who is deliberately obstructing his path to the base do? I say he should push the fielder out of the way and continue to the base; you say I'll be arrested for child endangerment for that. You're obviously very sure of yourself here, so it should be easy to explain.

    Add Reply

    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×