Little League rule interpretation
raiderscott
Posts: 154 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Had a situation that happened tonight at my son's game that's had me pouring over the LL rule book. Here it goes- my team is batting-
1 out- runner on 3rd. Past ball that rolls up the 1st base line. Runner comes home- batter is frozen stays glued in the batters' box- catcher flips the ball towards home- ball hits the batter in the back. Pitcher is lagging way behind on covering home- so there's no interfering with him. Ump rules him safe.....
Now this is when things get interesting- opposing bellows from the dugout (dude has a deep voice that carries the whole field) that it's batter's interference. Nothing from the ump- coach bellows again that it's interference.
Now the ump reverses his call and calls the runner out- saying batter's interference. To put it mildly- I'm not happy- and basically call out the other coach for basically bullying the ump into changing his call. Now if the other coach had called time and had a meeting with the ump- pleaded his case and got the call overturned- whether I agreed with it or not- no big deal. The ump is umping the game by himself so there's no way to get an unbiased second opinion.
I've looked through the rule book and can't seem to find anything clear cut. Anybody got a ruling? Thanks.
Scott
1 out- runner on 3rd. Past ball that rolls up the 1st base line. Runner comes home- batter is frozen stays glued in the batters' box- catcher flips the ball towards home- ball hits the batter in the back. Pitcher is lagging way behind on covering home- so there's no interfering with him. Ump rules him safe.....
Now this is when things get interesting- opposing bellows from the dugout (dude has a deep voice that carries the whole field) that it's batter's interference. Nothing from the ump- coach bellows again that it's interference.
Now the ump reverses his call and calls the runner out- saying batter's interference. To put it mildly- I'm not happy- and basically call out the other coach for basically bullying the ump into changing his call. Now if the other coach had called time and had a meeting with the ump- pleaded his case and got the call overturned- whether I agreed with it or not- no big deal. The ump is umping the game by himself so there's no way to get an unbiased second opinion.
I've looked through the rule book and can't seem to find anything clear cut. Anybody got a ruling? Thanks.
Scott
Looking for low #'d 2006 Marques Hagans + 1991 Wild Card stripes of UVA players - Tony Covington, Shawn Moore, Herman Moore
0
Comments
MLB rule
7.08 Any runner is out when-
(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball
----------------------
Working on:
Football
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (99.81%)
1976 Topps PSA 9+ (36.36%)
1977 Topps PSA 9+ (100%)
Baseball
1938 Goudey (56.25%)
1951 Topps Redbacks PSA 8 (100%)
1952 Bowman PSA 7+ (63.10%)
1953 Topps PSA 5+ (91.24%)
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (70.76%)
1985 Fleer PSA 10 (54.85%)
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
My gut reaction is that if there is a play at the plate developing from a runner on 3rd attempting to get home, then the batter clearly has a responsibility to get out of the way. (The only exception to this is if a runner is trying to steal home, in that instance the batter almost always is still in the box) While I don't think you'll find anything clear cut in the rule book, I agree with the "spirit" of the call. I could go either way, but I likely would also have called the runner out.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Rule #1 its generally a very very bad idea to change a call unless a valid reason is applied. Such as a written proveable rule
rule proves call was wrong.
Rule # 2 Never ever be intimidated by coaches, players, parents...ect. The batter is not a runner since he never hit the ball fair...it was a passed ball.
Unless there could have been a play and possibility of an out if batter was not hit (you say pitcher was out of position) then theer is no interference.
Kinda like in football a pass that was "uncatchable" cannot be called pass interference on.
and yes in LL things get that serious. You would think it was life/death.
Umps make mistakes,,,,I know I did.
I can remember me at 12 yo pitching a perfect game in the 4th inning. batter hits a dribbler up the first base line. ump calls "fouldball."
That should and legally stops all play. So I stop running after the ball. Ball gets about 3 feet from first base and hits a small rock and stops just inside the fair ball
line. Ump then calls fair ball. By then the runner is way past and safe. was I ever mad.
How about the major league ump that ruined a perfect game last year in the 9th inning......
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
The most recent rule book he has is 2009, but little changes. Rule 7.08 (g) states:
The runner is put out when attempting to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no score counts.
The definition for "interference" is found in section 2.00, Definition of Terms:
INTERFERENCE: (a) Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.
As previously stated, this is a judgment call for the umpire--it is his discretion as to whether the batter actually "interfered" with the play under the definition of interference. A judgment call can be overturned by the umpire if, after consulting the other umpire(s), they believe there is enough evidence to overturn it. Judgment calls are not grounds to play the game under protest, so you would not have been able to protest the game for this issue.
Also as previously stated, the issue here is NOT the umpire's call of interference or no interference; the issue is that the umpire went about arriving at his final call in an unprofessional manner. Once an umpire makes a call, the ONLY way he should EVER change it is if he meets with his colleague(s) and, together, they agree that the initial call was incorrect. Umpires should NEVER change a call without an umpire conference because that gives the appearance that A) the umpire has no idea what he is doing and that
The issue is complicated here by the fact that the home plate umpire was the only umpire doing the game. My son's personal opinion on this situation is that the original call must stand because there is no way to appeal it without diminishing the authority of the umpire. It's like a criminal conviction; if the judge finds someone guilty of murder in a bench trial, and the murderer throws a fit in the courtroom, the judge cannot just change the ruling to please the defendant. Instead, the only way for the conviction to be overturned is to appeal the case to another authority for another opinion. The judge cannot just change his ruling without any new evidence without giving the appearance that he is incompetent and does not have a firm grasp of the law. The ONLY way in which a solo umpire should change a ruling would be if the coach pulled out a rule book and showed the umpire a rule that the umpire was unaware of; that way, the umpire is made aware of "new evidence" that can change his ruling, rather than the "opinion" of an interested party. That circumstance would still make the umpire look incompetent, but it would adjust the call to something more accurate A) through new, objective evidence and
So, in summary, the issue of interference is a sideshow; the real issue is that the umpire unprofessionally changed his ruling. Unfortunately, there is really nothing you can do about that. My son said he would not, as a manager, say anything to the umpire when you see him again because questioning his competence could lead to problems in the future. However, you could contact either the board member in your league in charge of umpires or the person in charge of the umpires that officiate your league and tell them about the situation to make them aware. They may do nothing, or they may pull the umpire aside and offer a teaching moment.
I hope that helps!
<< <i>The most recent rule book he has is 2009, but little changes. Rule 7.08 (g) states:
The runner is put out when attempting to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no score counts.
The definition for "interference" is found in section 2.00, Definition of Terms:
INTERFERENCE: (a) Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. >>
That rule does not apply in this case. No FIELDER was interfered with.
http://baseball-rules.com/FAQs.htm#INT
A "PLAY" is an act of throwing, a tag attempt of a runner or a base. An out is not called unless the fielder is hindered while actually attempting to make a play. An out is not called simply because the fielder could have, or should have, or would have, or might have, had a play.
A fielder chasing after an overthrown, loose ball, is not a play. However, an out could be called if the offense did something intentional and blatant to hinder the fielder. Otherwise, it is nothing.
It is not interference, if the fielder starts to throw and then stops because an offensive player is in his way. Also, interference on a thrown ball, or throw attempt, or tag attempt, must be intentional.
<< <i>
<< <i>The most recent rule book he has is 2009, but little changes. Rule 7.08 (g) states:
The runner is put out when attempting to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no score counts.
The definition for "interference" is found in section 2.00, Definition of Terms:
INTERFERENCE: (a) Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. >>
That rule does not apply in this case. No FIELDER was interfered with.
http://baseball-rules.com/FAQs.htm#INT
A "PLAY" is an act of throwing, a tag attempt of a runner or a base. An out is not called unless the fielder is hindered while actually attempting to make a play. An out is not called simply because the fielder could have, or should have, or would have, or might have, had a play.
A fielder chasing after an overthrown, loose ball, is not a play. However, an out could be called if the offense did something intentional and blatant to hinder the fielder. Otherwise, it is nothing.
It is not interference, if the fielder starts to throw and then stops because an offensive player is in his way. Also, interference on a thrown ball, or throw attempt, or tag attempt, must be intentional. >>
My son:
The issue of the umpire being wishy-washy takes precedence over whether "interference" occurred; the OP is not upset so much because he thinks the umpire made a "bad call," he is more upset that the umpire was indecisive.
As for the interference, it is tough to say what "should" have been called because A) I didn't see the play and
NO INTERFERENCE: The batter did not "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play" because no play was being attempted. There was no fielder at the plate to receive the ball, so there was no potential for a play.
INTERFERENCE: The batter "confuses" the fielder attempting to make the play by staying in the box. When the batter stayed in place, the pitcher may have slowed down in running to the plate for fear of a collision, or the pitcher may have been flabbergasted by the batter saying in the box and froze for a moment. By staying put, the batter made it more difficult for a play to be made, thus "interfering with" the potential for a play. This website--which is just one umpire's opinion--states that:
"Many people believe the batter's box is a safety zone for the batter. It is not. The batter MAY be called out for interference although he is within the box. The key words, impede, hinder, confuse or obstruct apply to this situation.
An umpire must use good judgment. The batter cannot be expected to disappear. My philosophy is: if he has a chance to avoid interference and does not, he is guilty. If he just swung at a pitch, or had to duck a pitch and is off-balance, he can't reasonably be expected to then avoid a play at the plate."
Interference is a "judgment call," and if an umpire believes there is a reasonable argument that the player "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," then the umpire can call interference.
However, I want to stress again that the primary issue here is NOT the interference call, it is HOW the umpire arrived at the call.
<< <i>I want to stress again that the primary issue here is NOT the interference call, it is HOW the umpire arrived at the call. >>
Yes, I realize that the umpire changed his call. It is not against the rules for an umpire to change his ruling (at least in MLB).
"(b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire's decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision."
That is from the MLB rulebook. Perhaps there is a different rule in LL.
So, unless the LL rule is different, it's OK for an ump to change his ruling. Unfortunately, I believe that this ump changed his ruling from correct to incorrect.
In his book "The Umpire Strikes Back" he states that if he was unsure about a call because there was no clear cut rule that could be applied, he generally ruled against the team/player who caused the problem.
In this case the runner should have scored. The passed ball began the mess, the pitcher was not in position to make a play. The batter should not be required to leave the batters box on a passed ball, and he might not have been aware of the play at the plate, so unless the batter deliberately moved to block the ball from being caught, runner is safe.
He also said one of the first things he was taught was no matter what, make a call, even if it's wrong and NEVER NEVER change it. He did change one call in his career in the Majors.
Joe
<< <i>He also said one of the first things he was taught was no matter what, make a call, even if it's wrong and NEVER NEVER change it. He did change one call in his career in the Majors.
Joe >>
I don't really get that. If an ump blows a call, one team will be angry. If the ump properly changes it, there is STILL one angry team, but the call is correct. Which is better, one angry team and a blown call, or one angry team and the correct call?
MLB managers always want blown calls to be changed, but these same managers go crazy when a call is changed when it doesn't benefit their team!
In the MLB I do believe the umpires get almost every call correct (not including balls and strikes).
I highly recommend "The Umpire Strikes Back" it's a little dated, but you get the umpire's side of the story and he writes a humorous and informative book.
Joe
My beef was never with the umpire reversing his call, but with the coach "enforcing his will" so to speak. He and I have since exchanged e-mails and he has acknowledged that it was never his intention to intimidate the umpire, but did admit that his emotions got the best of him. No reason to hold any ill will as we're just 3 games into an 18 game season with 5 more head-to-head matchups.
the ump should have used good judgement and called the runner safe and told the other load mouth coach to shut-up...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
As for the call itself, it's remarkably simple. The batter, a runner, or the batter/runner can only have interference called on him for interfering with a THROWN ball when it's clearly done intentionally in the judgment of the umpire, a la Reggie Jackson in the 1977 World Series. Even then, the umpires didn't call it and LaSorda was pissed. Any other time, a batter, runner, or the batter/runner can only commit interference when physically interfering with an opposing fielder, not with the baseball. Clearly, the run should have counted, and the umpire was wrong for changing the call to out.
On the flip side, fielders interfering with runners don't even have to make physical contact. All they have to do is cause the runner to change his path in a way that delays his arrival at the subsequent base. This happened in the first inning of the first split-Stadium Yankees vs. Mets double header in 2000, when Chuck Knoblauch had to run around Todd Zeile at first base, who intentionally didn't get out of the way. From retrosheet:
YANKEES 1ST: First game of day between these teams; the second at Yankee Stadium; Knoblauch singled to right [Knoblauch to second (error by Zeile)]; Obstruction called on Zeile as Knoblauch rounded 1B; Mets protest; Valentine ejected by Demuth
<< <i>Anyone find this statement ironic? ....Past ball that rolls up the 1st base line.....Batter is hit in back with ball.........The batter obviously had to be left handed thus he would probably back out of the box when the ball rolled by him?? >>
No, because we're talking about a THROWN ball. You conveniently left that part out of what you copied. The ball rolled up the first base line. While the catcher ran to retrieve the ball, the batter remained stationary and motionless in the box. It doesn't matter which box he was in, and I can visualize this play unfolding with the batter on either side of the plate. The catcher picked up the ball and tossed it in the vicinity of home plate, where both the pitcher, who was late, and the batter, who was already there, were converging with each other and with the runner coming down the third base line, as well as the ball. The ball inadvertently hit the batter before the pitcher could get there, and presumably rolled away beyond the reach of any defensive player. The runner from third proceeded to touch home plate and score. According to the rules, nobody is guilty of any interference on this play and the run should count.
The ump was probably in his late 50s/early 60s. I don't believe he's ump'd much as they were some issues with him the week before (my team didn't draw him in either game last week)
Other than that situation- he called a good game (solid strike zone). The ump we had the previous week had a consistent zone- only it was from the knees to your eyebrows. Which is tough considering our league is made up of 8-10 year olds. About 6-7 years ago- the league we play in went away from the traditional 9-12 year old league and split it up into 2 leagues: 8-10 and 11-12.