Umpiring question.

Interference does not have to be deliberate to be called......Umpire could have determined that your son impeded the catcher's view....

Here is the definition...

Interference;
Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

Pretty broad......allows the umpire a large area of interpretation.....This would be a HTBT for me. "HAD TO BE THERE".....Im seeing this as pretty weak.....

The ump might be squeezing the batter a bit on this but:
NFHS Rule 7 Sec 3 Batting Infractions-A Batter Shall Not:
Art 5...Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:
a. leaning over home plate.

PIAA Ump and pilsner - thanks - I see.

P.S. My son would never do that LOL

PIAA I have a couple of ump's that could use your education, they won't call OII without the batter getting beaned by the catcher.

Hot Corner,
I've seen that myself.....That is usually a sign of an inexperienced umpire. Rather than make the wrong call they opt for no call.

Itsinthegame:
Of course he wouldnt........

Again as has been said many times before, we need to make sure which rules we are playing under.

With federation rules you would have offence inteference as discribed. However, if playing OBR that would not be interference unless the batter left the batter's box.

Another important factor in making this call, is the catcher has to make the throw. No throw, no call.

And finally, if the catcher makes the throw and the runner is out, then their is no interference.

I don't react well to being told I have to teach the catcher to bean a player to get an umpire to enforce a rule, that kind of play is unsafe and the way they are interpreting the rule encourages such actions. Not good at all. Thanks for the reply.

He doesn't have to bean the player. What does help in getting the call from the umpire is for the catcher to step up into the batter and collide with him as he makes the throw. Better yet, have the catcher do a flop like in basketball to help draw the foul. Good actors get more calls than bad actors.

I'm not sure where any one got idea that the catcher needs to bean the batter, or that the catcher needs to do an acting job.

The rule is very simple and easy to enforce, but as piaa_ump inexperienced umps won't call.

I know of some teams that teach the batter to lean over the plate as part of the steal play. They are playing the odds that the ump will not make the call. Do it the first time it happens and you do not see the rest of the game.

"I'm not sure where any one got idea that the catcher needs to bean the batter, or that the catcher needs to do an acting job.

The rule is very simple and easy to enforce, but as piaa_ump inexperienced umps won't call."

Most umpires fail to make this call, even in Varsity baseball. Good catchers have to help them with the call by making it obvious. By in large, umpires don't like tough calls and wimp out on them. Only if the umpire thinks he will get in more trouble by not making the call, will he step up to the plate, do his job, and make the call. A little help from a catcher goes a long way to helping the umpire. It's the same thing with framing a pitch. If the catcher makes it look good, he's more likely to get a strike.

Tall Ump-

I'm not sure of the level of umpiring you are used to, but here in Southeast Virginia we make that tough call. If you can't make the tough call you are not doing your job.

If you are assertive and direct with the call you will not get any "hassle" from the coach. Most likely you will gain a little repsect for making the call.

The only help I need from the catcher is for him to make the throw. NO THROW - NO CALL. And please no acting.

quote:

I'm not sure of the level of umpiring you are used to, but here in Southeast Virginia we make that tough call. If you can't make the tough call you are not doing your job.

I mostly do varsity baseball and all the umpires to a man that I work with would say that they make this tough call. Only problem is, when I'm out there on the bases and see an obvious interference, more than half the time the umpire makes no call. He always has a lame excuse after the game. When an umpire does make the call, the coach comes out and says with some justification "You're the only one who calls that."

I have noticed however, that if the catcher steps up into the batter while making the throw and gets tangled up, he almost always gets the call, even from the timid umpires. An added side benefit is that the coach does not come out and argue.

You raise a great question regarding mechanics. If you are in the B position an observe batter interference do you think you should make that call?

I think I could, but umpire protocols won't let me. Theoretically, either umpire can make an interference call. However, I've never seen a BU make a batter interference call and I'm sure that it would lead to an ejection if it was tried. Therefore, I keep my mouth shut until after the game when I'm the BU and the batter interferes with the catcher's throw.

So as the father says in Fiddler on the Roof "TRADITION."

Interesting thoughts.....the rules would support either umpire calling the interference, but as Tallump says, tradition has this call as only being called by the the UIC.

I have never called this nor ever seen it called from anywhere but from behind the dish.

Calling this from the field would most certainly start a beef that most likely would end in an ejection.......

quote:

Originally posted by Pirate Fan:
Another important factor in making this call, is the catcher has to make the throw. No throw, no call.

hmmm...you have stated this twice, but I disagree.

Basically what you are saying is that as long as the interference is so flagrant that the catcher is unable to make a throw then the interference can't be called and I strongly disagree with that. If the batter swings and loses his balance and falls over and knocks the catcher over before he has a chance to throw, that is intereference even if no throw was attempted.

The rule reference to back that up is p.54 of the Fed case book (7.3.5D)Situation has R2 and R1 stealing and B1 interefering. It says "If in the umpire's judgement F2 could have made a putout on the runner(s) but (the umpire) cannot determine where the play was going to be made because of the nature of the interference, then the umpire will then call out the runner nearest home plate."

What could possibly happen to prevent the umpire from being able to discern where the play would have been made other than the throw not occurring?

The NFHS book expects this call to be made EVEN WITHOUT A THROW.

The important part of this is that the interference is occurring on the attempt of a throw, the same as interference involving the forceplay slide rule (another situation where a throw is not needed for a call to be made). these two are very different from the interference that occurs in the 45' running lane near 1st base. In that situation a throw IS required since the interference isn't with the attempt of the throw but instead is with the reception of the throw.

Basically, interference with a throw falls into one of 2 categories, interference with the throwing end of a throw or interference with the catching end of a throw. When interference is with the catch a throw is required and when interference is with the attempted release the actual release of the ball is NOT required.

I think you are really stretching your interpatation of the rule. Rule 7.3.5 refers to the batter intererring with the catcher's fielding or throwing. The situation that you discribe with the batter falling on the catcher, I agree with completely. It is interfering with his fielding.

But if a batter leans over the plate, and all the catcher does is receive the ball and does nothing else I don't see how you can make an interferece call. NO THROW, NO CALL.

If you do, I think you are asking for trouble. The situation you describe in case book, what did it say the batter did?

quote:

Originally posted by Pirate Fan:. The situation you describe in case book, what did it say the batter did?

From p54: "[1 out and a 0-2 count]. . .R1 and R2 attempt a double steal. B4 swings and misses and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out either R1 or R2." then the ruling is what I quoted above about UIC judgement.

I used the extremes to point out my difficulty with your blanket statement about "no throw, no call" and I think the the force play slide rule analogy holds up without stretching the situation.

My basic point is that if action by the batter prevents a throw, I'm going to call that interference, but if the fielders don't have a play and the catcher has no intention of throwing the ball, then I agree that is a no call.

What is the difference between a throw and an attempted throw.

This is not a test. Just asking for oppinions or better yet, rulings.