My adventures this weekend.

[CPEM]

All games 12u ASA, different umpire each time.

Game 1: R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, B3 hits a ground ball to the left of F6. As she is moving to her left to field the ball, she has to stop in order to avoid colliding with R1 running to 3rd. The ball rolls into short left-center field, just behind R1. When asked about interference, the umpire replies, "I have nothing." When further questioned what "I have nothing" means, she just repeats "I have nothing." Had she stated "In my judgment, the fielder did not have a play on the ball and thus there was no interference" I would have been content, because I can't question her judgment, officially at least. But "I have nothing" doesn't tell me much. I asked her what the rule is on interference, and she couldn't explain it to me. At that point I knew I couldn't continue the argument, and this tournament didn't allow protests of any kind, so I was stuck with that ruling. Is "I have nothing" a sufficient explanation?

Game 2: Right-handed B1 at the plate, begins to square around to bunt with the pitch. Hasn't fully squared around when she realizes the pitch is coming very far inside. She simultaneously pulls her bat back and tries to get away from the ball, but it strikes her in the left elbow, which by this time is tucked into her side protecting her rib cage. Her entire body (arms, hands, head, legs, torso) is fully within the batter's box. Her bat is back and she drops it behind her upon being hit by the pitch. Umpire calls dead-ball strike. My batter can't continue her at-bat, we were still in pool play and using round-robin batting so no sub was available, and thus she is declared out. Knowing I can't protest, I save my questions for between innings in order to be less confrontational. Between innings, I approach the umpire and ask her to explain that one to me, as I'm not clear on the rule that she was citing. She replies that since she was in the act of squaring around, that it is considered a swing, and therefore it is a dead-ball strike. I asked if she observed her pulling the bat back and she said yes, but that it was still considered a swing. I asked if the pitch was in the strike zone when she was hit and she said no, but that since she was "swinging" it was still a strike. So I tried a different approach and asked what is the call on a pitch out of the strike zone and the batter has her bat across the plate in a bunting position but does not move her bat towards the pitch and she responded that the pitch is a ball. I asked her why is that, and she said because being in the bunting position is not considered a swing, only if the batter moves the bat towards the ball. So then I asked how does this change for a batter whose bat hasn't even entered into a bunting position, never completes setting up in the bunting position, and has pulled the bat back by the time she is struck by the ball? She replied "It's in the rulebook." I told her that I believe she was incorrect, and her own explanation of the rules as she believed them to be contradicted each other. As I'm walking away, she continues yelling at me "It's in the rulebook, it's in the rulebook!" At this point, she doesn't allow my pitcher to take any warm-up pitches and forces her to begin pitching cold. Later on, my scorekeeper told me that when the umpire was explaining to her what happened immediately after the at-bat and before the end of the half-inning (before I came over to ask her), she had told her, "that's my rule, if they are squaring around to bunt, I consider that a swing, that's my rule." Was she correct?

Game 3: R1 on 2nd, B2 hits a ground ball to the left of F6, and again F6 has to stop in order to avoid a collision with R1 going to 3rd. Ball continues behind R1 into short left-center field. Upon dead ball, I asked for time and approach the umpire and ask him if he noticed the interference. He said he had, but that because F6 was in the basepath of R1, that R1 was entitled to be there and that F6 had to go around her. I told him he was incorrect, and if he would let me, I had a rulebook in my pocket and I can show him immediately. He then changed course and said that F6 was behind the basepath and came up and to the left into the basepath and that the runner shouldn't be expected to avoid the fielder. I again told him he was incorrect and offered again to show him the rulebook so he could gain greater clarity. The rulebook is still in my pocket, I'm not bringing it out unless he says it's ok, and I'm doing this in as hushed a tone as possible. He wouldn't have it. He kept reverting back that the baserunner is entitled to the basepath and the fielder has to adjust. Am I missing something here?

 

[Jr10234]

Had you not said 12u I would have thought we were at the same game.

Watched this a couple times this weekend as well:

INT was called when the runner jumped over the ball as F6 was attempting to field, and another when F6 ran into the runner as F6 was coming n to make a play.

INT was not called when the fielder pulled up to avoid collision twice, nor when the runner jumped over the ball before the fielder arrived at the ball.

 

[MsDinosaur]

Interference is more likely to be called with contact; I'd hope that F6 would be going after the two ground balls more aggressively in game one and game three instead of stopping to avoid a collision. She might even manage to get the ball and make the out if she charges hard. IMO it's better if the girls try their hardest to make the play, showing everyone they certainly COULD have gotten to the ball, rather than giving up and hoping blue will make a judgement call in their favor. JMO.

 

[CoachKevin]

You know the answers to all those questions, I understand venting about calls. On defense, coach your players the FIRST priority is fielding the ball, if they run into a runner or a runner runs into them in the act of fielding the ball you'll probably get INT call (Not that a collision is required per the rule, but...). If they slow down 90% of the time NO CALL is made.

In #2, I've never heard an umpire use that "rule", however you also state that your pitcher didn't get warm up pitches and had to start cold. That is kinda the coaches fault, pitchers that may be needed in relief should keep warm between innings when not batting.

 

[MTR]

Love to know where all these "umpires" get their training, assuming that there is any training to get.

 

[David Carter]

Must be same place as the ones around here. In know you guys love the game and work hard at understanding the rules and applying them fairly but that is just not the case for maybe 30% to 40% of the umpires around here obviously some are better than others but probably a third are clueless.

 

[CPEM]

Interference is more likely to be called with contact; I'd hope that F6 would be going after the two ground balls more aggressively in game one and game three instead of stopping to avoid a collision.

You know the answers to all those questions, I understand venting about calls. On defense, coach your players the FIRST priority is fielding the ball, if they run into a runner or a runner runs into them in the act of fielding the ball you'll probably get INT call (Not that a collision is required per the rule, but...). If they slow down 90% of the time NO CALL is made.

I appreciate both of your opinions, but I must simply disagree. We shouldn't have to coach our girls to run through or over or initiate contact to get the appropriate call made. We would be inviting more and more injuries, and we would be exposing ourselves to being sued because we told the player it was ok to steamroll someone in her way. In both of these instances, my SS would have obliterated the baserunner, and while we would have been "in the right," I would take no satisfaction in that, moreso if it caused an injury to either girl. I know contact is inevitable in certain situations, and there will be injuries as a result, but as demonstrated in these two instances, contact was avoided, injuries didn't happen, and the correct call wasn't made. I coach my girls to play correctly and know the rules, and these times the system failed them. Only thing I can do is hope that the pendulum swings back my way for the next tournament, as I'm not changing how I coach them.

 

[CoachKevin]

Ummm nobody said "steamroll" a player. I don't advocate that at all. But I do tell my players to go after the ball as the priority. You can disagree all you want, bottom line you probably will never get that call if your defenders slow up to allow the BR room.

 

[chinamigarden]

Got to say, I was at an ASA tournament this weekend and it was the best umped tourney I have been to in 8 years. Sure there were some balls and strikes I didn't agree with (but I was probably out of position compared to the plate ump) After the championship game I told the umps who worked the last game what I thought of the umps for the weekend. He looked surprised to hear it.

 

[CPEM]

Ummm nobody said "steamroll" a player. I don't advocate that at all. But I do tell my players to go after the ball as the priority. You can disagree all you want, bottom line you probably will never get that call if your defenders slow up to allow the BR room.

I apologize for incorrectly characterizing your comments. And I do get what you are writing. However, the rules are written a certain way, and in other discussions I've read on here and other similar forums, most of the umpires agree that contact is not necessary for interference to occur. Additionally, my concern for your "the ball as the priority" strategy may result in the defensive team being penalized for obstruction, since some umpires (as I noted in my original post) believe that the basepath belongs to the baserunner. We shouldn't have to coach our girls into possibly making contact with the other player when it can be avoided and they are protected by the rules of the game. I guess the best recourse at this point is to submit my concerns to the regional and/or state UIC and hope that this becomes a point of emphasis in the clinical portions of next year's umpire training sessions.