|
Jim Porter and I have had our disagreements regarding which official should make the call of interference when R2 runs into F6 fielding a batted ball. While I feel PU should since he sees the entire play developing and occurring, Jim has advocated that the BU should since he is "closest to the play." My argument to Jim's position is that frequently the BU only sees remnants of what has just occurred behind his back, and he may be left guessing at the needed decision.
An interesting situation occurred in an adult league playoff game this past week.
As PU I could easily follow the path of the ball off the bat and past the pitcher as it was slowing due to high grass (the field was playable but had not been cut due to recent heavy rains). I could also see that R2 going to 3B had clearly crossed the path of the ball, and he had also crossed the path that F6 needed to get to the ball from his starting location on the field.
This was going to be a tough play for F6, and he obviously needed to charge the ball hard to have any hopes of a play at any base. However, F6 didn't charge to field the ball. He altered his charging path to collide with R2 who, as stated, had already passed F6's needed path to the ball. The collision was obvious, and BU had turned with the ball passing him to easily see the action of the collision. I decided to allow the official "closest to the play" to make the call since I felt BU had seen all aspects of the play, but I ready to jump in if no call was made by him.
The BU made the call---but he called interference vs. obstruction.
At that point I realized that he hadn't seen that F6 took a path to cause the collision vs. to field the ball.
As a result of the obvious collision that all saw, there was no argument from the offense on what appeared to them to be the proper call. I felt it was too late for me to come into the call without appearing to be overruling the BU---so I said nothing. Needless to say, I wish I had followed my policy and jumped on the call despite the BU being "closer to the play."
IMO, all the action was easy to see and judge from behind the plate.
While I felt BU had witnessed the veering, he didn't.
In speaking with my partner (an excellent umpire) after the game I told him I felt he was "baited" into the interference vs. obstruction. He indicated that with the play right on top of him---ball passing him plus F6 charging---that perhaps he was TOO CLOSE to call those angles to know F6 had veered into R2. At this time I'd have to agree with him. He didn't blow the call---I did by not being first to jump on it having seen what I did.
So....having not made the call as PU............
Would you have done any differently?
Would you have approached BU to tell him that F6 veered into R2,
or would that be considered as imposing yourself into his call?
(Which, at the time, I thought I would be doing if I approached him).
The play went unchanged, but there's no doubt in my mind a quick thinking F6 came away the winner in this poker hand. I know for sure that if I see that action again that I'm ready to jump on the call. I'll risk the opposing calls if BU happens to come in with a different call at the same time. If needed, we can conference to discuss all aspects of the play before providing our explanations and final decision.
BTW, this ended up being a game won by F6's team driving in the winning run in the bottom of the 7th with 2 outs. I suspect the proper call would have likely had significant impact at that time of the game.
Your thoughts.............
Freix
|