A thread for the umps...what would you do’s, oddball plays, war stories

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

May 27, 2022
412
63
What rule set? I do mostly USA so it’s what I’m most familiar with - in USA, if the batter interferes, it’s always the batter who is out, regardless of number of outs.

Good point. In NFHS (since I know that better), you could argue 7-4-4 and be right, but my thinking was that 3-5-5 was the right call.
7-4-4: Interfering with the catcher - batter is out
3-5-5: Offensive team shall not be near a base when a runner is advancing - runner is out

The batter did not interfere with the catcher, she interfered with the pitcher coming to cover the plate. But you could be right. This was out number 3, so the only difference was if the batter would start the next inning or the next batter would.
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
Yeah, you could argue that...
No argument needed NFHS 10-3-1 The field umpire shall have concurrent jurisdiction the the plate umpire...when a fly ball is caught....

Yes, I know the IFF does not involve the actual catching of a fly ball. In fact, it removes the need for catching it. However, 10-3-1 means that the field umpire has concurrent jurisdiction in determining if a fly ball results in an out, which the IFF certainly DOES pertain to.
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
Good point. In NFHS (since I know that better), you could argue 7-4-4 and be right, but my thinking was that 3-5-5 was the right call.
7-4-4: Interfering with the catcher - batter is out
3-5-5: Offensive team shall not be near a base when a runner is advancing - runner is out

The batter did not interfere with the catcher, she interfered with the pitcher coming to cover the plate. But you could be right. This was out number 3, so the only difference was if the batter would start the next inning or the next batter would.
3-5-5 would not apply in this case. 3-5 involves coaching and the team members covered by 3-5-5 are base coaches, players gathering about home plate (on-deck batter), and such. If you are going to call an out in this scenario, it must be the batter, she is the player causing the issue. Why would you make a ruling that would allow her another bite at the apple in the next inning by leading off?
 
May 27, 2022
412
63
No argument needed NFHS 10-3-1 The field umpire shall have concurrent jurisdiction the the plate umpire...when a fly ball is caught....

Yes, I know the IFF does not involve the actual catching of a fly ball. In fact, it removes the need for catching it. However, 10-3-1 means that the field umpire has concurrent jurisdiction in determining if a fly ball results in an out, which the IFF certainly DOES pertain to.

Appreciate your thoughts. Working with a previous umpire I was told that he, as the plate umpire, 'owns' the IFF call. The second time it happened in this game, I pointed to the PU and shook my head yes to affirm what I thought the call should be. But, as who I work with changes every day and not up to me, it is a balancing act on how to manage it. To be fair, he did not consider the first one to be IFF in his opinion. I did.
 
May 27, 2022
412
63
3-5-5 would not apply in this case. 3-5 involves coaching and the team members covered by 3-5-5 are base coaches, players gathering about home plate (on-deck batter), and such. If you are going to call an out in this scenario, it must be the batter, she is the player causing the issue. Why would you make a ruling that would allow her another bite at the apple in the next inning by leading off?

In all honesty, probably my mistake; I'll study it more, learn from it, and be better next time. The thought in my head was that the runner was not going to beat the ball to the plate and it was her mistake for trying to score so 'punish' her.

I appreciate your thoughts on it!
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
The thought in my head was that the runner was not going to beat the ball to the plate and it was her mistake for trying to score so 'punish' her.
This makes no sense. Our job as umpires is to enforce the rules fairly and equitably. It is not to 'punish' players, especially for doing things WE may not think they should be trying to do within the confines of the rules.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
Appreciate your thoughts. Working with a previous umpire I was told that he, as the plate umpire, 'owns' the IFF call. The second time it happened in this game, I pointed to the PU and shook my head yes to affirm what I thought the call should be. But, as who I work with changes every day and not up to me, it is a balancing act on how to manage it. To be fair, he did not consider the first one to be IFF in his opinion. I did.

I've worked with many umpires who believe this too. They are typically the same guys who say "On a check-swing, I'll repeat what you called or you can give me a signal on what you want me to call." NO ... do not fall into that pit!

If I am on the plate and I have a BU who says this in the pre-game, I offer my best rebuttal:

The BU actually has a much better look at an IFF under many circumstances. It is difficult for the PU to make this judgement call on a fielder who is moving away (towards the outfield). The BU is typically in perfect position to determine if the fielder will get there with "normal effort." As BU, I will give my PU a signal (waving my hand behind my head) to say "do NOT make the call, it is too far back."
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
I think this is the one you are looking for:

USA 7-6U

The batter is out ...

U. When interfering with a play at home plate.
Effect - Section 6R-U:
1.) The ball is dead.
2.) The batter is out.
3.) Each runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Exception: If no play is being made and the batter accidentally makes contact with the catcher’s return throw to the pitcher. Effect: A The ball is dead. b Any advancement of runners shall be nullified.
 
Jun 6, 2016
2,714
113
Chicago
- Had one player obstruct second with her knee and took a cleat into the side of her knee. Terrible technique and she ended up in tears for a couple minutes she was able to return. I warned the coach that was the second time she was in the way and probably something to work on.


- I had one coach that kept trying to get his catcher to slide her glove to the center of the plate in an attempt to get more strikes. We talked after the game. I told him that 'officially' moving the glove won't help. But, as a catcher's dad, if you want to help the umpire, catch the ball as far forward as possible. The farther back you catch it, the more it travels away from the plate and, if you want to help the ump, try to catch it before it gets farther laterally than it needs to. He didn't seem to know a lot about good catching techniques. Probably told him more than I should have, but wanted to give him some help to help his catchers.

You said "obstruct," but did she have the ball? It's definitely dangerous technique, but if she had the ball, she can be there legally.

I think what makes the second paragraph completely fine is "We talked after the game." At that point, you're just someone who knows the game sharing some ideas with a parent. I see nothing wrong with that. You're not coaching her up during the game. You're giving some take it or leave it info to her dad, and you're not currently acting in the role of umpire when doing it.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,478
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top