how would you ruled this?

[CoogansBluff]

As i said earlier there is no right or wrong answer to this,

Not sure I understand the logic behind this statement. What is the judgment call that can be seen two ways? Is it judging the intent of the batter/runner, whether she meant to interfere?

IMO, it's one thing to have a different judgement about what happened, but another to have a different judgment about what the rules say or mean. The rules should be clear.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

... The video ends prior seeing what the actual call on the field was, so I don't know what was called on the field.

The defense is coming off the field after the play, so it is apparent that interference was called for the 3rd out.

Intent is not necessary for almost all forms of interference. Knowlegeable umpires have posted in the past that a runner is not expected to just vanish as soon as they are retired and therefore have to do something out of the ordinary to be called for interference. I'm not convinced the batter knew it was caught and it's possible she slowed because she thought at best it was going to be a foul ball.

It's a judgement call that is right either way as long as the umpire correctly applies the rules.

 

[Lenski]

As i said earlier there is no right or wrong answer to this.

Of course there is. It's either interference or it's not.

 

[JAD]

Of course there is. It's either interference or it's not.

It is a judgement call by the umpire, and as others have pointed out, the umpires do not have the use of "instant replay" when making their decisions.

 

[CoogansBluff]

It is a judgement call by the umpire, and as others have pointed out, the umpires do not have the use of "instant replay" when making their decisions.

Yes, but the fact that it's a judgment call and that ''instant replay'' can't be used doesn't mean the call isn't either right or wrong. I can understand if someone says that it's too close to call, but what I don't understand is simply saying it's a judgment call, or open to interpretation. Let's say this is football and there's a controversial call in the Alabama-Auburn game and the SEC reviews the call. They might say 'correct call,' or 'wrong call,' or even 'too close to call,' but I don't think I've ever heard them say 'judgment call.'

 

[JAD]

Yes, but the fact that it's a judgment call and that ''instant replay'' can't be used doesn't mean the call isn't either right or wrong. I can understand if someone says that it's too close to call, but what I don't understand is simply saying it's a judgment call, or open to interpretation. Let's say this is football and there's a controversial call in the Alabama-Auburn game and the SEC reviews the call. They might say 'correct call,' or 'wrong call,' or even 'too close to call,' but I don't think I've ever heard them say 'judgment call.'

A lot of pass interference calls in football are judgement calls. A lot of fouls in the NBA are judgement calls.

 

[CoogansBluff]

A lot of pass interference calls in football are judgement calls. A lot of fouls in the NBA are judgement calls.

I agree. My point is that just because it's a judgment call doesn't mean it can't be right or wrong. Of course, there are certain judgment calls that are so subjective and borderline that officials might be split down the middle on how they would've called it even after analyzing it on video. Perhaps that's what people are saying in this case. A foul in basketball or a strike in baseball might fall on that borderline category. Just not sure I see how in this case that it would be bordeline like that.

Keep in mind, I'm asking these questions to learn, not to teach, so pardon if it sounds like I'm trying to win an argument. Just seems like this case should be either right or wrong (in retrospect). We can see where the batter/runner was when struck. We can see where the ball was traveling. I don't see any justification for assuming that the batter/runner tried to interfere, or that the catcher hit the batter/runner on purpose. Can't read their minds. Seems like it's a simple matter of where the batter/runner was at the time she was struck. But as previously stated, I'm no umpire.

 

[nealwallen]

Seems like it's a simple matter of where the batter/runner was at the time she was struck.
what does it matter where the batter runner is when she was struck, to the umpires it was more important that she was a retired out. That is why they called interference. plus, it is impossible to tell what the intent of the girl was, we ruled interference because she interfered with the throw to first.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Seems like it's a simple matter of where the batter/runner was at the time she was struck.
what does it matter where the batter runner is when she was struck, to the umpires it was more important that she was a retired out.

If that's the case - that a retired batter or runner is not protected by the running lane - then I've learned something, which is good. I'm not an umpire, just someone trying to understand how this play works.

As an aside, then - How can a runner legally 'break up' a double play at second once he has been forced? It would seem that once the runner is out, it would be his/her responsibility to avoid interference at all costs. Anything that hampers the shortstop or second baseman at that point could and should be called interference.

But back to the play, and my main question. I still don't see how it can be said that there's no right or wrong call to the play we're discussing. If the batter/runner is not protected, then we're down to another ''simple matter'' - Did the batter/runner interfere with the throw to first? Looks like pretty obviously she did.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

If that's the case - that a retired batter or runner is not protected by the running lane - then I've learned something, which is good. I'm not an umpire, just someone trying to understand how this play works.

As an aside, then - How can a runner legally 'break up' a double play at second once he has been forced? It would seem that once the runner is out, it would be his/her responsibility to avoid interference at all costs. Anything that hampers the shortstop or second baseman at that point could and should be called interference.

But back to the play, and my main question. I still don't see how it can be said that there's no right or wrong call to the play we're discussing. If the batter/runner is not protected, then we're down to another ''simple matter'' - Did the batter/runner interfere with the throw to first? Looks like pretty obviously she did.

Softball umpires I respect have posted in the past that a retired runner simply sliding into 2B isn't guilty of interference, but would be if they go after the fielder. MLB rules are obviously different where runners can go after the fielder as long as the runner is within reach of the bag.

Comp posted he wouldn't have called IF and I presume that is because he didn't see the retired B-R do anything out of the ordinary. Other umpires applying the rules in the same fashion might call IF because they judged the B-R intentionally did something to interfere.

You are correct that some judgement calls are either right or wrong. Balls/strikes are considered judgement calls and we all know they are not always correct because there is objective criteria for them. If a call requires the umpire to make a subjective judgement (e.g. intent), then determining whether it is correct is not black/white.