[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Your partner's back was NOT to the "play", or "attempted play", in your situation. He was facing the "play" when it was made. What he may or may not have seen was the preliminary action. By your own admission you weren't sure he had missed that action at the time of the call. OTOH, in the "off the ball" obstruction case you CAN be sure at the moment the obstruction occurred because your partner would obviously have his back to the action while following the ball. The clear distinction between INTERFERENCE and OBSTRUCTION is that only INTERFERENCE demands the presence of the ball in proximity, and BU is entitled and required to be watching that. OBSTRUCTION, OTOH, usually requires the absence of the ball in proximity; that's the difference.

Warren, your post seems to state that only the contact with proximity of the ball is "the play", and that the action of the fielder moving to field the approaching ball is irrelevant to and considered separate from (“preliminary”) the play. In this situation, because of BU's back being turned to the play, he was unable to witness the fielder veer into the runner. BU saw only the climax of the play---which was the collision. The veering action, was indeed, part of the play. In fact, the needless veering of the fielder into the runner caused the collision.

After your explanation, Warren, I'm just wondering what you would do as the PU in this situation:

Tie score in bottom of 9th with nobody out and bases loaded.
Infield is pulled in with R2 standing very near to F6.
The ball is hit as a soft, looping line drive toward F6, but R2 immediately and obviously pushes F6 causing him to stumble. F6 barely misses the catch as the ball lands and rolls to the outfield. In your judgment, F6 could have easily fielded the ball if not for the obvious push. The BU's back is turned to this action as he is watching the ball vs. the action occurring behind him.

In YOUR judgment:

1. Would you not consider this interference since the "presence of the ball in proximity"” to F6 at the time of the contact did not exist?
   
2. Is this action part of “the play”, or is this “preliminary” action?
   If not part of “the play”, how can you have interference without a play?

We apparently disagree again, Warren, in that I feel the fielder moving to field a batted ball is part of "the play" and not preliminary to it. After all, if the runner runs into the fielder moving to the ball, that is interference. Although the ball may not yet be proximate to his person, the fielder merely needs to be judged as the protected fielder.

In situations with BU in C position, his back is to a portion of the play. He cannot witness certain information pertinent to the play no differently than he cannot witness obstruction behind him when he's looking to the outfield for a needed call on a batted ball. In fact, Warren, isn’t that really what we are saying here---that the PU saw the act of the fielder veering into the runner while the BU with his back turnedto that action did not? Isn't that obstruction? Even you seem to agree that the PU can call obstruction if the BU’s back was turned to the play. So, would you agree that the PU should have called the obstruction here?

Originally posted by Warren Willson

OBR 9.04(b)
A field umpire may take any position on the playing field best suited to make impending decisions on the bases. Duties shall be to:

1. Make all decisions on the bases except those specifically reserved to the umpire-in-chief;
2. Take concurrent jurisdiction with the umpire-in-chief in calling "Time", balks, illegal pitches, or defacement or discoloration of the ball by any player;

Warren, this passage is meant to provide authority to the base umpire; not to take it away from the PU.

In the situation I present here (with R2 pushing or tripping F6 behind the back of the BU), let's assume that the PU makes the call of interference---and not the BU. NOW, the offensive manager formally protests the call because, per 9.04(b), all decisions on the bases belong to BU.

YOU are the protest committee, Warren, do you uphold the protest?
Inquiring minds want to know.....………..

1. Does rule 9.04(b) set the mechanics for the umpires---designating who can and cannot make a call when an infraction is witnessed?
   
2. Are you going to replay this game from this point because the PU (not the BU) made the proper call, or do you expect the BU to call something he doesn't witness?
   
3. With R2 and BU starting in C while watching BR’s high fly to leftfield, if the PU had called an obstruction on F3 as BR rounded 1B (BU's responsibility for the touch), would you uphold a protest if one occurred for that reason? The obstruction call seems to be one which you approve of PU making.

An umpire shouldn't call an infraction he doesn't see, and your partner can’t see it if he’s got his back to the action due to using proper mechanics. In such situations where one official sees an infraction and believes his partner had his back to pertinent information regarding that decision, the other official should jump on the call. With the BU in C position, that is frequently the case with R2 and F6, and the PU should be ready to make that call. Our mechanic manuals designate our responsibilities, and I've not seen a single mechanics manual designate obstruction, interference, or balks to any single official. Please lead me to one that does if you are familiar with any.


Freix