Runners under a "decoy" rule

[CoogansBluff]

Because it is impossible to enforce fairly, or what people will believe is fair, and it WILL become a defensive strategy. Every time you have a slapper take a couple steps toward 1B on a third strike, the catcher is going to wing the ball toward first and before the umpire can raise his/her hands to kill the play, the defense will be begging for an out and cry vociferously if they do not get it.

That's the kind of answer I was looking for. I'm not sure I am convinced that umpires couldn't make fair calls on these type plays, but I respect that argument, and it helps me make sense of the fact that strikeout victims are allowed to make plays for their teams after they are out. Good point about a runner put out at second.

 

[MTR]

I'm not sure I am convinced that umpires couldn't make fair calls on these type plays

Been umpiring 47 years, training and evaluating for about 20 and I have witnessed so many different "rulings" that had nothing to do with the rules, but were made in the name of "fairness" I could write a book. People tend to forget that what seems fair for one team may not be for the other team on the field. As a player and coach, I take solace in knowing what the rules (of a particular sanctioning body) are and that whether I'm playing in Florida, Oklahoma, Washington or Pennsylvania, they will be applied the same. It is when you run into this umpire or organization that have their own opinion or manner in applying the rule that cause consternation among the participants.

And contrary to popular belief, umpires are our own toughest critics.

 

[bhblue]

Right. All that's left to do is explain to the offensive coach that what you called as INT didn't prevent the fielder from making the play (which must occur for INT)

thats just plain silly

certainly not true in ASA

Sorry, talking NCAA rules. All silliness aside:

12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field
a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference,
provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

A play is defined in NCAA rules as:

"An attempt by a defensive player on a batted or thrown ball to retire a base runner or a batter-runner."

I'm not certain, but I don't think the bold part above nor certainly the underlined part appear in the ASA or NFHS rule books. We can discuss which rule set better defines INT, but NCAA is unique in its stated requirement that player was prevented from making a play. IMO, this changes the way umpires have to look at potential INT situations.

 

[bhblue]

Because it is a blurry line that will just end up in that many more "what ifs" to the point of inconsistency. You'll have one umpire letting a situation play out and another killing it based upon personal opinion of how the play is unfolding.

Based on the NCAA rule, how can an umpire not let the situation play out? Using a DDB for these plays would hopefully ensure it. Where the inconsistency exists now, IMO, is where umpires conditioned from their ASA days to kill the play upon runner/fielder contact kill it while others have adapted to the different rule.

Do you kill it if the immediate play does not gain an out or do you let it continue until that get one out, or let it go even further looking for a 2nd out? If you let it continue, how far do you go back if you think the alleged INT had some type or even ANY affect on the play or continuation of the play?

Yes, I kill it once I determine a fielder was prevented from making her initial play. I don't, and can't, assume anything beyond her immediate play. Once she successfully completes her initial play, any continuation of play is no different from any other play - there was no INT.

For example, this happened in one of my games last week:

Based load, 1 out. Ground ball, not very well hit, to F6. As F6 approaches the ball, R2 brushes her on her way to 3rd. F6 fields the ground ball, tosses it to 2nd for the force and F4 unsuccessfully attempts to turn the double play. No INT was called. Defensive HC comes out to argue the brush prevented the DP from being turned. It was explained to her that F6's initial play was made at second and that the DP could not be assumed.

Had the play been killed upon contact between R2 and F6, it would have greatly affected the game as the tying run scored on the play. That wouldn't have happened with an erroneous INT call.

 

[grounder]

Sorry, talking NCAA rules. All silliness aside:

no problem..i may have been confused myself

 

[GI Tom]

Based on the NCAA rule, how can an umpire not let the situation play out? Using a DDB for these plays would hopefully ensure it. Where the inconsistency exists now, IMO, is where umpires conditioned from their ASA days to kill the play upon runner/fielder contact kill it while others have adapted to the different rule.


Yes, I kill it once I determine a fielder was prevented from making her initial play. I don't, and can't, assume anything beyond her immediate play. Once she successfully completes her initial play, any continuation of play is no different from any other play - there was no INT.

For example, this happened in one of my games last week:

Based load, 1 out. Ground ball, not very well hit, to F6. As F6 approaches the ball, R2 brushes her on her way to 3rd. F6 fields the ground ball, tosses it to 2nd for the force and F4 unsuccessfully attempts to turn the double play. No INT was called. Defensive HC comes out to argue the brush prevented the DP from being turned. It was explained to her that F6's initial play was made at second and that the DP could not be assumed.

Had the play been killed upon contact between R2 and F6, it would have greatly affected the game as the tying run scored on the play. That wouldn't have happened with an erroneous INT call.

So all your saying is you deemed there was no interference there, correct? Which is exactly what you are supposed to do, determine if there is or isn't INT when it occurs. However, if on that exact same play, F4 drops the perfectly thrown ball from F6 for the out at 2nd, are you saying then you would call INT?

 

[bhblue]

So all your saying is you deemed there was no interference there, correct? Which is exactly what you are supposed to do, determine if there is or isn't INT when it occurs. However, if on that exact same play, F4 drops the perfectly thrown ball from F6 for the out at 2nd, are you saying then you would call INT?

No. The runner contacting F6 would not have interfered with F4's ability to catch a perfectly thrown ball. Now, had F6's throw been wild, the chances are I would judge that the contact threw her off enough to affect her throw and kill it at that point and rule INT. The rule is in place to protect the defense, so any benefit of the doubt goes to them as long as the rule supports it.

 

[GI Tom]

No. The runner contacting F6 would not have interfered with F4's ability to catch a perfectly thrown ball. Now, had F6's throw been wild, the chances are I would judge that the contact threw her off enough to affect her throw and kill it at that point and rule INT. The rule is in place to protect the defense, so any benefit of the doubt goes to them as long as the rule supports it.

Ok, so a few posts ago you said calling INT would have been erroneous and greatly impacted that particular game. Now, your stating if on the exact same play, F6 generated a poor throw to 2nd and she airmails it into RF, or shorthops it for a miss, then it's INT?

 

[bhblue]

Ok, so a few posts ago you said calling INT would have been erroneous and greatly impacted that particular game. Now, your stating if on the exact same play, F6 generated a poor throw to 2nd and she airmails it into RF, or shorthops it for a miss, then it's INT?

If I judge the contact with the runner prevented her from making the play, that's right. What I tried to say earlier is that had INT been ruled in that situation (F6 not being prevented from making the play) it would have been erroneous by rule. Obviously, either call greatly affects the game.

 

[Momo'sDad]

No. The runner contacting F6 would not have interfered with F4's ability to catch a perfectly thrown ball. Now, had F6's throw been wild, the chances are I would judge that the contact threw her off enough to affect her throw and kill it at that point and rule INT. The rule is in place to protect the defense, so any benefit of the doubt goes to them as long as the rule supports it.

So you're basing a possible INT call on the outcome of the play? I cannot support this. Either it was INT or it wasn't.

As a coach, I don't want an umpire making calls based on the game situation. I know you're only human, but the position of the tying run, etc. should have no influence on an umpire's judgment. If you saw INT, you should call it.