 |
Author |
TOPIC: SEE VIDEO PAGE - WHAT'S THE CALL? |
|
| Bill
August 9, 2013
4:05:09 AM
Entry #: 4081186
| Please go to the VIDEO PAGE. Watch the video and then come back here and post your comments. WHAT'S THE CALL?
|
|
| Chris Sotiro
August 9, 2013
8:00:52 AM
Entry #: 4081194
| The play is being made on R1, so I've got interference on the batter because she has been retired and should not be in the field of play. I look at these situations where there is confusion caused by a batter/runner who should not be in the field of play because she has been put out two ways: 1) if the play is on the batter runner, the cathcer should know the batter runner is out, and shouldn't be throwing the ballso I have nothing and the ball is live 2) if the play is on another runner and the retired batter runner interrupts the play, I have interference.
|
|
| Bill
August 9, 2013
8:03:27 AM
Entry #: 4081195
| Batter /runner was in the proper lane therefore no penalty on the offense. Note the proper lane beginsthe last 30 feet to the base. Very close on if we were at that point. If not batter/runner is not confined to the running lane
|
| henryrsca39@hotmail.com
August 9, 2013
8:35:20 AM
Entry #: 4081197
| Batter is out when catcher caught the ball. When catcher threw to 1st the batter -runner was in foul territory and not interfering with the play. 1 out.
|
| Mike Boylan
August 9, 2013
9:07:19 AM
Entry #: 4081207
| Play on! Nothing! End of discussion!
|
|
| Bill Lunger
August 9, 2013
9:30:30 AM
Entry #: 4081209
| Entry #4081195 is not from Bill Lunger.
|
|
| neal
August 9, 2013
9:40:36 AM
Entry #: 4081211
| Mike, what is your reasoning?
I happen to believe what was called during the game was the correct call. the umpire called interference and then called the girl on first out also.
|
|
| Greg
August 9, 2013
9:55:03 AM
Entry #: 4081212
| It's a runner who has already been put out. One out, pop by the batter caught two outs. The throw now hits a runner who has already been put out when the catcher is trying to retire the runner from first who is returning, after having left early. The runner is in foul territory when hit. My guess would be, ball is dead, return runner to first, two outs, new batter.
|
| Beth
August 9, 2013
11:05:49 AM
Entry #: 4081233
| Batter is out on the catch, and as she appears to be in foul territory when she is hit, she is not interfering. Catcher has ample space to make a good throw to the bag. One out. Inning continues.
|
|
| Allan
August 9, 2013
11:30:32 AM
Entry #: 4081237
| Beth, are you agreeing with "Mike Boylan" that the ball remains live (play on), or that the ball is dead and you return the runner to first base.?
|
|
| Perry
August 9, 2013
1:01:55 PM
Entry #: 4081263
| Once the catcher catches the ball, the batter-runner becomes a retired runner. A retired runner cannot be part of any play under any circumstance. Then the retired runner interfers with the catcher's throw to try to retire the runner from first that left early. If a retired runner interfers, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate is also declared out. RULE 8, SECTION 7P. Double play inning over. Also, RULE 8, SECTION 2F, referring to the batter-runner. Once retired, it doesn't matter if the batter-runner is running in foul, fair, or the running lane. They are "retired" and interfered, period.
|
| Neal
August 9, 2013
1:16:28 PM
Entry #: 4081268
| Thank you Perry, couldn't of said it any better myself!!
|
|
| Nov
August 9, 2013
1:47:44 PM
Entry #: 4081282
| thank you Perry for the specific rule quote. i'm in FL on business and do not have my rule book here or i would have done the same
that was my call and as you see in the video, i made it without hesitation and my explanation to the coach [you see him coming from 3B coaches box to discuss it] was exactly what you wrote.... interference by retired runner, intent has nothing to do with it, where she is has nothing to do with it, catcher's choice to throw immediately and not move has nothing to do with it..... unfortunate since batter-runner obviously doesn't realize she's out. rule book clearly states since she's out, it's interference.
btw, coach asked me if i was certain, i told him absolutely 100%, he smiled and accepted my explanation. he was [is] a very classy man, was the whole tournament [had them 2-3 times]. said he's never seen that play in 20 years but accepted the call & moved on
appreciate the vindication / validation! )
|
|
| Ron C.
August 9, 2013
3:11:08 PM
Entry #: 4081316
| Perry is correct! A retired runner is a RETIRED RUNNER, and can't be involved in any way after being declared out. INTERFERENCE! RUNNER closest to home plate is also rung up!
|
|
| Mike Zingaro
August 9, 2013
5:49:42 PM
Entry #: 4081372
| My opinion is that the batter-runner has not reached the running lane, therefore in legal position and no interference has occurred.
However, we were not involved in the original paly, at real time, and only have the vantage point of the video, which raises some issues
1. The plate umpire after making the out call on the fly ball, appears to be in good position, without any call for interference
2. The base umpire makes the interference call, therefore we would have to assume the batter-runner has entered the running lane, absent as it might be, even though the “play” (the ball hitting the batter-runner) is facing the plate umpire
3. There does not appear to be any debate by the penalized team
4. The umpires did not get together to discuss the call
5. The third out was recorded
6. Did the catcher intentionally throw at the batter-runner?
|
|
| Mike Zingaro
August 9, 2013
5:53:35 PM
Entry #: 4081376
| Good call Perry
|
|
| Brian Spellman
August 11, 2013
9:02:19 AM
Entry #: 4081606
| Bill, Great job on the video. You had the perfect angle. I'm glad to see that the right call was made. Once again, great work on your tournaments. You and your staff put on great ones. We hope to see you this Fall. Brian Spellman, 16U North Jersey Gators.
|
|
| Anthony Ruggeri
August 11, 2013
9:10:16 AM
Entry #: 4081607
| Hey, Bill! The Scarsdale coach is actually Dave Scagnelli. I'm the team coordinator and first base coach. Having this video is just great! Also a bit funny, because I was actually going to e-mail you to see what the official ruling was on this play. I thought that the umpire's explanation of his ruling was very clear and concise, which I believe avoided any argument. Very nice job, on the umpire's part. He was right on the mark with the correct rule. We enjoyed your tournament and look forward to returning. Well-organized and well-run. Anthony Ruggeri, 16U Scarsdale Raiders Coordinator.
|
|
| Nov
August 11, 2013
6:31:36 PM
Entry #: 4081700
| a lot of good comments & thoughts on this video
it appears the main area of confusion has to do with 'retired runner' vs one who is not. when the runner is retired it makes no difference if she has reached the running lane or if she's in foul territory. since she's retired it's interference - period.
either umpire can make that call and there should not be a need for us to confer [unless the coach asks & umpires choose to honor that request]. in this case there was actually a discussion for a minute or so, the video stops as head coach - coming from 3B coaches box - is walking towards me. he accepted my explanation after hearing what i had to say and asking if i was 100% certain i answered 'yes, 100%'
if the batter-runner had bunted ball in front of plate fair or maybe a dropped 3rd strike, NOW the running lane comes into play. doesn't apply here because she was out on the catch
the catcher could have stepped to a side & threw, true, but she didn't. she hurried the throw and it's i doubt she hit the B-R intentionally - but intent also has no bearing on the call either
|
|
| Nov
August 11, 2013
6:33:06 PM
Entry #: 4081702
| Brian & Anthony appreciate your comments!
|
|
| dave kubich
August 12, 2013
7:58:04 AM
Entry #: 4081821
| You have nothing, live ball and batter runner out. the batter was in foul territory approaching the runners lane. I feel the batter runner was walking off the field after the call out was made.She was in foul territory when she was hit so you have no interference.
|
|
| Jimmy D.
August 12, 2013
8:52:48 AM
Entry #: 4081833
| Here you go, Dave. Runners on 1st and third, no outs. Ground ball to the short stop. Short stop throws to the second baseman on second, one out. Second baseman wheels and throws to first, and it hits the runner coming from first. That runner is a retired runner who interfers (intentionally or unintentionally). Ball is dead. The interference was caused by a retired runner. Therefore runner closest to home plate is also out. Two outs, runner on first. Same principle.
|
|
| Perry
August 12, 2013
2:17:54 PM
Entry #: 4081959
| Look at the video several times. The batter-runner actually looks back and sees that she's out, but still continues on to first base. Sure the catcher had penty of time to make a better throw on the runner leaving early from first, but the batter-runner should have veered off as well. On a quick, snap judgement on the field, I believe that the umpires did the right thing. Nowhere in the book does it say that the retired runner has a resonable amount of time to get out of the way.
|
|
| Bruce B
August 14, 2013
9:13:25 AM
Entry #: 4082500
| I have no foul no call. The girl has a right to run to first. She sees the catch and slows down to give up. She is not in an illegal spot. The intent of the rule is when someone continues to run as if she is not out. The catcher had plenty of time to delay and move in a position to make the throw. She throws the ball almost immediately after the catch. Part of umpiring is using common sense instead of strict interpretation of rule.
|
|
| Kevin
August 15, 2013
12:44:51 PM
Entry #: 4082886
| Catcher has been coached very good.Two outs play goes on.
|
|
| Perry
August 15, 2013
2:34:59 PM
Entry #: 4082920
| Kevin? What do you mean by two outs play goes on? If you have interfernce, Kevin, the ball becomes dead immediatley. Can't have two outs with the ball remaining live. If you think that the catcher threw the ball at her on purpose, I believe that you are wrong. Watch the catcher actually run after (or move toward) the ball.
|
|
| Allan
August 15, 2013
8:28:25 PM
Entry #: 4082998
| After watching the video several times, I think that Kevin means that you can tell there is obviouly one out to begin with. The catch makes it two outs, and then the ball remains live after it hits the runner.
|
|
| Tammy
August 19, 2013
4:48:18 PM
Entry #: 4083919
| I watched the video over a dozen times, starting and stopping it over and over again. I can see the interference, but I think that there should be two outs, with the runner on first. I think that the ball should have remained live.
|
|
| Allan
August 19, 2013
9:45:58 PM
Entry #: 4084015
| Good thinking, Tammy. But if there is interference, the ball would become dead right away. I think the catch makes two outs, call the ball dead (no crime no foul), and return the runner to first base, and get a new batter.
|
|
| Blue 56
August 22, 2013
11:12:04 AM
Entry #: 4084792
| I don't think you can apply the retired runner rule here. The batter/runner is treated differently that any other runner probably because she has no way of knowing what has happened behind her. Example - Rule 8-7-P-Note states that drawing a throw, a form of interference, on a dropped third strike does not apply to the batter/runner. While this is not exactly on point we all know that runners are not routinely penalized by calling another runner out because the batter ran to first and the catcher actually caught the third strike making her a retired runner. Batters are taught to run and sometimes there out and sometimes not but they run to first and find out after the play is over. Another runner was called out on this very play because the batter ran to first after making contact with the ball. Isn't that how the game is played? Since she was legally running to first and appears to have both feet in foul territory when struck what should she, and all batters, have reasonably known, have legally done and where should she have been? She is playing the game and running to first base without trying to cheat or bend the rules. Possibly there should be a clarification by a higher authority but as I see it the batter legally running to first and in foul territory should not carry a penalty absent some intentional interference. Possibly 8-7-P should include the batter after contacting the ball or the catcher would just have catch an easy pop up and then peg the batter with the ball, who is still close by, for an additional out. Is this reasonable? This I'm sure is not the intent of any ASA rules or batters would routinely be thrown at while running to first.
|
|
| Hank
August 25, 2013
8:30:11 PM
Entry #: 4085626
| First would like to state that it is easy to make judgement on an umpires call from afar and not in real time. An official has to be timely and consise when making a call that does not happen that often on a play they may not have ever seen before or that is very rare.
Also rules can be applied differently by an umpire because there judgement is what drives them when making a call. I know rules are in black and white and should be applied the exact same way each time, but that does not factor in judgement.
I am now going to be honest and not skirt the question of was the call the right call by the game officials. I have watched the video several times and came to a decision on the call. This of course it not what the officials had. There is no instant replay and would not be used during a judgement call to applying the rules that cover this play.
I believe it would have been the first right of the home umpire to make the call. Play was in front of him and had a perfect view of the foul line and running lane. Also home umpire could see how far the runner was down the line and where the player was when hit with thrown ball. Field umpire did have a view of play, but not nearly as good as home umpire.
My call from either umpire decision would have been a no call. Why. Because the runner met all the requirements asked by a runner going to first base. Runner was clearly hit by thrown ball in foul territory at almost the halfway point and did not block or interfere path of a thrown ball to first base to double up the runner returning. Runner was in the place where the rule book said she was supposed to be, retired or not. Catcher made a throw that was way off target to first and would not have doubled up the returning runner to first.
Having made this decision does not say the call was the wrong call on this play. Why because in my judgement was a no call and when I applied the rule in my head. The umpire used his judgement and applied the rule he had in his head.
From what I could see from video, umpires did a great job in explaining their call to the coaches and the game continued smoothly.
We will continue to debate this call, but rules are applied in real time with judgement being a big factor in any umpires call.
|
|
| Larry Sotsky
August 27, 2013
7:08:37 AM
Entry #: 4085972
| Batter/runner is out on catch. Batter/runner already exited batters box (prior to catch) and has no clue that ball was already caught. She was in proper running lane to first base and struck by ball thrown by catcher to first base. Therefore, batter/runner should NOT be out for interference. R1 should NOT be called out. Play on.
|
|
| john V
September 3, 2013
9:40:38 PM
Entry #: 4087783
| Commissioner Bill. Why aren't you weighing in on the video tape call?
|
|
| Bill
September 5, 2013
9:46:41 AM
Entry #: 4088204
| John V.: I hope to post my response by the weekend, and list the final numbers of the vote on our poll. Our state U-I-C, Jim Peters, will
chime in on the play next week sometime. Thank you for your interest, and to all of those who have e-mailed us, posted on the forum, and voted in our poll.
|
|
| Bill Lunger
September 10, 2013
9:58:16 PM
Entry #: 4089780
| Ultimately, this is really a judgment call. It really depends on how you read the play and your initial impression. Some folks (some that we’ve spoken to, and some who have posted comments here), have had the opportunity to watch the video multiple times and in some cases have begun to read things into the play (especially on the intent of the catcher, and the knowledge of the batter-runner). The umpires on the field never had that luxury, and because of that, whether you agree or disagree with their ruling, they still deserve your respect for making the call quickly, and handling the situation with courtesy and dispatch.
On the field, we don’t have time or even the inclination to read the intent of a player. We are taught as umpires to “call it like we see it,” and that we are not to “read” something into a play or take the time to determine whether an act was intentional or not. Those of you have umpired for awhile also know that there is never enough time to think about those things anyway. Only unschooled coaches, and parents that have never umpired a competitive game, believe that there is time, or even a desire to process plays in that way.
I witnessed the play. I made the video. I agree with almost every insight and comment posted here from our Umpire-In-Chief, Hank McClary. I wish that I would have let the camera run a bit longer so that you could see all, of how very well the umpires handled the situation. I wish that the plate umpire in calling the out on the pop up would have verbalized catch even louder, and another time or two. I wish that I had a better microphone on my camera. And I wish, as previously stated, that people wouldn’t read things into the play, like “the catcher threw the ball at her on purpose.”
Having said all of that, I still can’t get past the fact that the runner is a retired runner. To me, a retired runner is just that, a retired runner. I don’t care if she didn’t know “this, that, or the other thing.” Those of you that have watched the video over and over, have to admit that you actually see the runner look back toward the home plate umpire or home plate. I was standing directly behind the backstop, and I heard the plate umpire declare “out,” loud and clear, so I have to assume that the runner heard it as well. I would have liked to have heard, “catch, catch, catch,” but that’s 20/20 hindsight, and not really fair..
“She didn’t know she was out.” I say that she was a retired runner. “She was running in foul territory.” I say that she was a retired runner. “The catcher had plenty of time to make a better throw.” I say that she was a retired runner. “What do you want the runner to do, disappear into ground?” I say that she was a retired runner. “The catcher threw the ball at her on purpose.” I say that she was a retired runner. “Common sense says that you can’t make a call like that, by the letter of the book.” I say that she was a retired runner.
I have several plays that I think would make my point, especially as a counter point to some of the comments made here. But I don’t want to lose sight of my original comment, that in my opinion, this call is ultimately a judgment call.
If the umpires would not have ruled interference, in reviewing the play, I probably would have disagreed with their judgment, but not with the call as they saw it in real time. I believe, right or wrong on the judgment call of interference by a retired runner, that the umpires did an excellent job. They made the call, backed up their call, and treated the coaches of the offensive team with respect and gave them a direct and courteous explanation. They did it in the very best tradition of well-trained ASA umpires. Job well-done!
|
|
| Bill Lunger
September 10, 2013
10:16:25 PM
Entry #: 4089784
| By the way. The final vote on our poll was:
INTERFERENCE 44
PLAY ON 39
OTHER 1
|
|
| Edward
September 11, 2013
11:38:37 AM
Entry #: 4089877
| Batter is out on the caught foul fly ball. No interference. The batter is in the 3 foot lane with her right foot on the ground when struck by the thrown ball. PLAY ON.
|
|
| Ron C.
September 11, 2013
1:22:56 PM
Entry #: 4089903
| Wow, Edward! Already been covered. Already been stated. One of the most respected men in softball offers his opinion in an honest, open mannner, and that's all you can say? He complimented the umpires, right or wrong, for the way they handled the situation. He even clearly stated that he would have defended them for their judgment if they would ruled the other way. Don't be so flippant.
|
|
| john
September 11, 2013
3:39:26 PM
Entry #: 4089927
| Bill, excellent try on explaining the call. I know you are well respected, but I still do not buy into the runner interference. Retired runner rule is not applied unless runner interfered. Runner in foul territory, first 30 feet and did not intentionally get in way of catchers throw to first. Runner had met all critera within the rules so did not interfere. Retired runner or not retired has nothing to do with this out call. So if runner had not been retired there would have not been interference called? So now a catcher only has to throw a ball and hit runner in back in foul territory and in the runner lane in foul the first 30 feet and will get a double play. Should not have been called. I do not know what the plate umpire was thinking, but I believe it was his call in front of him and he made the correct judgement in not calling anything.Kudos to him and shame on the field umpire making a call that was clearly not his. Home plate umpire looked puzzeled in video when field umpire called interference on a play that was not his.
FORGET THE RETIRED RUNNER.NO INTERFERENCE ON RUNNER RETIRED OR NOT.I believe UIC Hank was correct when saying retired runner was a not factor because there was no interference period. Hank was to easy on the two umpires as this was a call as we say in baseball softball, was a call made out of " left field "
'
|
|
| Mike
September 11, 2013
9:59:39 PM
Entry #: 4090010
| This one sentence will explain why the call made was 100% wrong.
TO HAVE INTEFERENCE ON A PLAY ,AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE MUST OCCUR.
|
|
| Jim Peters
September 12, 2013
7:52:18 AM
Entry #: 4090061
| Bill, after watching this video, and speaking with other umpires, I have a few thoughts on this play.
Firstly, this is a 50/50 play. Half the people will love you, and other half will strongly disagree with you. Ultimately, it is really a judgment call. But here are the rest of my thoughts.
A) The batter runner meets all of the requirements we look for. She ran the line, she attempted to get into the running lane (in this case unmarked), at the midway point. What did she do wrong? What could she to have done differently, other than to become part of the ground/field/dirt?
B) Plays from the foul side, allow the runner and fielder to switch with no penalty.
C) Example: runner on first leaves on the pitch. Line drive to shortstop that is caught runner turns and dives back into first. The throw hits her in the helmet and bounds into dead ball territory. What is your call?
D) Another example: runner going first to third gets hit in back going into third, is this interference?
E) Situations will always dictate the call. Many calls are not black and white in the book.
This situation called for quick judgment, then the enforcement of a rule. My first thinking, is easy to see if you’ve thought about points A-E, but it’s not that simple.
Now we get to the issue of the call. Do we, or do we not have interference. The issue is not so much your call in this situation, but your game management skills in explaining this call to one or both of the coaches. Depending on the situation, the proper rules to enforce are only equal to being able to get the game back on track. Not letting the game get away from you (the umpires), is just as important.
From what I seen, and read, these two umpires did a great job of umpiring and of game management. We can question their opinion all day long, but we need to congratulate them on a job well-done with enforcement of the rules, and their game management of the situation. Consequently, if they would have ruled no interference, and displayed the same game control, I would be just as enthusiastic on the out come.
Once they called interference, they had to stick with it. And they did!
Finally, your web site is a just a great vehicle to bring plays like this to an open forum. Discussions like this, not only help benefit your membership, but it helps umpires all around the state.
Your group needs to be commended. The knowledge of the rules for your group is enhanced by this kind of participation. It validates the tremendous move forward of your organization. This site has provided an avenue and played a major a role in improving the knowledge, the mechanics, and the game management skills of your umpires.
This is just one of many reasons as to why your district has been sending umpires to A.S.A. Nationals.
Jim Peters
NJ State ASA U-I-C
PS: I do not have interference on this play, but that does not mean much. I really believe that the ball should have remained live with no interference, but that does not lessen their quick judgment and enforcement of the rule, as they saw it. Once the judgment was made that there was interference (in the umpires’ opinion), they handled everything well. I only hope that if I were in this position, that I would have handled it as well as your umpires did, GREAT JOB!
|
| Neal
September 12, 2013
9:24:54 AM
Entry #: 4090080
| Guys, here is the definition of Interference. I have interference. If you want the rule changed then change the definition.
Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes,
hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual
distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution
of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball
anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered.
|
|
| Perry
September 12, 2013
10:15:26 AM
Entry #: 4090085
| Neal: Edward, John, and Mike, want an "act of interference." Perhaps they want her to stand on one foot and act like a chicken. The fact that she is a retired runner and in the way of the throw, is "the act." As Bill said, too many people are "reading into the play," and now, also "reading into the rule."
|
|
| Administrator
November 8, 2013
7:56:02 AM
Entry #: 4103490
| THIS VIDEO IS NOW LOCATED ON THE
TRAINING PAGE.
|
|
| Bill
December 3, 2014
5:41:27 AM
Entry #: 4154047
| FYI: This video is now located on the TRAINING PAGE. Thank you
|
