Interference...again!!

[MTR]

Ack forgot this was here!

Jumping over the ball comes with the confuses part. I've seen it called out every time it occurs.

And so can a coach screaming at his runner to go back, or a runner coming off of 2B and falling down. A runner can confuse a runner by going behind them to avoid interference, is that INT? You are reaching to the level of over-officiating in an attempt to justify a terrible interpretation.

The runner's job is to advance, the defender's job is to make a play on the ball. The runner is supposed to avoid INT, not open the door for the defense to get as many outs as possible.

No particular action is interference unless there is interference with a play. Rules in ISF, ASA, NCAA & NFHS specifically note that a runner may run in front of or behind avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

Interference requires an act of interference. A runner doing what they are supposed to do is not an ACT meant to confuse the fielder.

I can tell you in ISF, ASA, NCAA & NFHS, that umpires are directed to not call interference unless a runner does anything other than making every effort to progress in the direction they were moving. IOW, unless the runner waited for the ball and then jumped over or studder-stepped just as the ball was reaching the fielder, an act meant to interfere, it is nothing.

I'm not going to give you a resume, but I am more than qualified, not just as an ISF & ASA umpire, but clinician and instructor.

 

[Lozza]

MTR I emailed a friend who is an ISF umpire. Here's her response

Australia and New Zealand were the only countries in the world to judge jumping over the ball to be interference. In the last 2 years we have redefined our interpretation of the rule and jumping over the ball to avoid contact is now ok.

So I was right, but am not anymore. Ask most Aussies (and I think Kiwis) and they would still argue to the death that jumping over the ball is INT. (as I was prepared to do!)

 

[MTR]

MTR I emailed a friend who is an ISF umpire. Here's her response



So I was right, but am not anymore. Ask most Aussies (and I think Kiwis) and they would still argue to the death that jumping over the ball is INT. (as I was prepared to do!)

Well, you were correct for your part of the world and I can understand that since many umpires rely on local training. I was fortunate enough to have spent a week in a seminar at the ISF HQ by the ISF Dir. of Umpires and staff prior to achieving my certification. I did not have to rely totally on a good old boys system.

I know it should be the same rules, but no matter where you go or what rule set being addressed, there is often local influence added to some interpretations. That is usually due to lack of continuing update on rules and interpretations through clinics and schools which can be understood due to the wide geographical range covered. However, this routinely happens where the geographical range is no more and 200 sq miles. It isn't that those are not available especially in today's hi-tech world, but some umpires just don't think they can be taught anything they don't already know. This is why "longevity" is not always a viable measure of the quality of an umpire.

And often, once engrained, some things never get corrected or updated until something actually happens and the question goes up the chain of command.

 

[Lozza]

I know it should be the same rules, but no matter where you go or what rule set being addressed, there is often local influence added to some interpretations.

Thing is, if you'd asked me if it was different anywhere else I would have said no. Often people just don't know it's ruled differently on the oppisite side of the world.

It's purely a case of it's so ingrained that even if they had told me past, in my head it would have stayed. I had training on Saturday at 11. I got emails and a post on Facebook reminding me. I knew it was 11 o'clock. It was 10. I never checked the time because it was so in my head at 11, that there was no need! Thankfully I was there by quarter past, but I felt terrible. Take this rule, which I've been playing one way for 23 years and it's easy to see why it is so ingrained.

I saw a screaming match at a game last season with this. One claiming it was INT one not. Everyone on the sidelines was on the coach who was saying INT and clearly the guy who had only been in the game a year didn't know. He might not have, but it's easier to break someone who has the rule a lot less and therefore stuck less.