- May 27, 2022
- 412
- 63
Yeah, you could argue that...Sorry, you both missed the call.
Yeah, you could argue that...Sorry, you both missed the call.
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.
No argument needed NFHS 10-3-1 The field umpire shall have concurrent jurisdiction the the plate umpire...when a fly ball is caught....Yeah, you could argue that...
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?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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
- 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.