Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan
Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.
This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).
Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.
One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.
The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!  |
There is a big problem with using the post-obstruction evidence in a situation like this. The post-obstruction evidenced completely changed the play.
Had the obstruction not occurred, the runner likely rounds 3b by a step or 2, then retreats back, seeing that the catcher already has the ball in her hand and she has absolutely no chance to score on the play.
The only reason that she attempted to score was that when she was obstructed, the resulting trip and fall left her far enough off 3b for the defense to throw behind her instead of chasing her back to 3rd.
In this case, the penalty (awarding home), did not fit the crime (obstruction at 3rd base). The offensive team already gets the benefit of her not being able to be put out between the bases she was obstructed at, which is the prescribed penalty for the crime. It also, by virtue of that rule, allows her the opportunity to try for home in the continuation of the play, without the liability to be put out.
To me what this play really boiled down to was not a crew that was in agreement with awarding her home plate, but a 3rd base umpire (who uses a 4 umpire crew for high school softball?) that was insistent that she be awarded home and 3 other umpires who, when asked, now have to justify an incorrect ruling to save their partner's tail from his decision making.
Now, as for the quote in blue. She wasn't trying to go back to third because she was picking herself up off the ground. When she did pick herself up, she was caught between third and home and initially does attempt to go back, but sees the throw from F2 go over her head to the defender at third (F5 I would presume).