- May 29, 2013
- 50
- 0
USSSA rules, 10U tournament pool play game
R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with a grounder hit directly at F4 who was playing a little behind the basepath. She steps up to field the ball as R2 passes directly in front of her -close enough I couldn't tell if there was contact- and F4 is obviously affected in her ability to field the ball. She bobbles it, so can't tag R2 going by and then the throw is 0.5 sec late to get the batter/runner at first.
I called time and asked the ump what her ruling was on the play (specifically asking if there was interference). At that point, had she said "in my judgment there was no interference" I would have thought it a bad call, but not much you can say. Instead she said "there was no contact, so no interference." I challenged this, saying "contact is not required for an interference call." So she then says, "There was no interference because the runner was in the basepath." This is where I started to get a little hot. I said "That's completely irrelevant -- the fielder has right of way to field a batted ball and the runner has to avoid interfering with her, even if the runner has to leave the basepath." The PU then said "uhhhh, there was no interference." I asked her to see if the BU saw anything different, and to her credit she asked. He appeared not to have been watching -- I suppose he was watching R1 on her way to 3B.
So my question isn't so much "was there interference?" since that's obviously a judgment/YHTBT call. My question is how should I have approached this to maximize my chances (however slim) of a successful appeal? Then, once the PU misapplied two critical rules regarding interference, what are my options? As I said up front, had she started off with "my judgment was no interference" there's nothing I could do (can't protest a judgment call) -- but once she started BS-ing her reasons for the no-call counter to the rules (unless I am incorrect), should I have clarified that her position was that there was no interference because of "no contact" or "runner was in the basepath" and then protested that? If a protest isn't the right way, is that just one of those times you have to eat it and play on?
As it was, I got mad, made some rather loud and not helpful side comments, and probably expanded the strike zone for my batters by a foot or so in every direction for the rest of the game. Certainly THAT wasn't the best way to handle it... so was she wrong in her reasoning (or at least her explanation)? If so, what could I / should have done?
R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with a grounder hit directly at F4 who was playing a little behind the basepath. She steps up to field the ball as R2 passes directly in front of her -close enough I couldn't tell if there was contact- and F4 is obviously affected in her ability to field the ball. She bobbles it, so can't tag R2 going by and then the throw is 0.5 sec late to get the batter/runner at first.
I called time and asked the ump what her ruling was on the play (specifically asking if there was interference). At that point, had she said "in my judgment there was no interference" I would have thought it a bad call, but not much you can say. Instead she said "there was no contact, so no interference." I challenged this, saying "contact is not required for an interference call." So she then says, "There was no interference because the runner was in the basepath." This is where I started to get a little hot. I said "That's completely irrelevant -- the fielder has right of way to field a batted ball and the runner has to avoid interfering with her, even if the runner has to leave the basepath." The PU then said "uhhhh, there was no interference." I asked her to see if the BU saw anything different, and to her credit she asked. He appeared not to have been watching -- I suppose he was watching R1 on her way to 3B.
So my question isn't so much "was there interference?" since that's obviously a judgment/YHTBT call. My question is how should I have approached this to maximize my chances (however slim) of a successful appeal? Then, once the PU misapplied two critical rules regarding interference, what are my options? As I said up front, had she started off with "my judgment was no interference" there's nothing I could do (can't protest a judgment call) -- but once she started BS-ing her reasons for the no-call counter to the rules (unless I am incorrect), should I have clarified that her position was that there was no interference because of "no contact" or "runner was in the basepath" and then protested that? If a protest isn't the right way, is that just one of those times you have to eat it and play on?
As it was, I got mad, made some rather loud and not helpful side comments, and probably expanded the strike zone for my batters by a foot or so in every direction for the rest of the game. Certainly THAT wasn't the best way to handle it... so was she wrong in her reasoning (or at least her explanation)? If so, what could I / should have done?