[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair

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.

Putting words in my mouth #1:

1. I DID NOT say that only the contact with proximity of the ball is "the play". I DID say that interference could not usually occur without the ball in proximity. The degree of proximity is, of course, up to umpire judgement.

2. I DID NOT say that the action of the fielder moving to field the approaching ball was "irrelevant to and considered separate from ... the play". I DID say the action of YOUR fielder was "preliminary" to the play. Why? Because it was clearly NOT a part of the fielder's actual attempt to field the ball, by your own admission.

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

Putting words in my mouth #2:

1. I DID NOT state or imply that the "veering" action was "not important" to ultimately judging whether the resulting contact was interference or obstruction. I DID say that it was NOT YOUR CALL to make as PU!

Steve, you seem to want to call everything that you see on the diamond, regardless of who else might have primary responsibility for the call according to the agreed system of mechanics you are using. You are relying on the ubiquitous "getting the call 'right'" admonition in order to justify usurping your partner's authority under the rules. That is specifically prohibited under rule 9.02(c). Live with it and move on.

Originally posted by Bfair
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?

What would I do as PU? I would wait to see what my partner called. If he made no call on the play, I would try to let him know that I could contribute vital information to his resolution of the furore that would surely follow. Of course the action, as described, constitutes interference IF the defensive act clearly hindered the fielder in his ability to make a play on the ball. As I said, proximity is a question of umpire judgement.

Since this is BU's call, he must be given the opportunity to make the call. I have my own responsibilities in that case - eg checking to see if R3 properly tagged up, and watching to see that the B-R was not impeded in his progress to 1st base.

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

Putting words in my mouth #3:

1. I DID NOT say that the fielder moving to field a batted ball was not a part of the play. That was your misinterpretation.

Your fielder was NOT moving to field the batted ball, by your own repeated admission. He was instead moving to make contact with R2. His "veering" action certainly WAS "preliminary" to his making a play on the ball. BTW, the "point of the play", which is the term that I actually used, is where the ball and fielder have come into proximity.

Originally posted by Bfair
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?

• YES it was probably obstruction that you witnessed.
• NO, it was not your call because at the moment of contact - ie the precise moment of obstruction - the BU was looking right at the incident.

It was NOT YOUR CALL to make at the point contact actually occurred, because it was within the BU's view. If it wasn't then he couldn't have called the interference. Only the preliminary movement was hidden from the BU. The BU is entitled to make a call based on what HE saw. You are NOT entitled to call anything to do with the contact when that clearly happened within the BU's field of vision, regardless of any preliminary movement that brought the fielder to that point of contact.

Originally posted by Bfair

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

Okay, then how about the corollary - OBR 9,04(a5):

The umpire-in-chief shall stand behind the catcher. (Usually called the plate umpire). Duties shall be to: ...

(5)Make all decisions except those commonly reserved for the field umpires;

Put that together with OBR 9.04(b1) and you get the same result - it was NOT YOUR CALL!

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

The whole protest argument is specious. We were discussing whether umpires should or should not usurp their partner's calls. It happens, but I doubt any coach would ever protest such an occurrence.

Is it "illegal" to poach your partner's calls? Taking OBR 9.04 literally, it probably is. Would anybody therefore suggest that umpires may not decide to follow a different system of mechanics than that dictated under OBR 9.04(a) and (b)? Of course not! If you and your partner agreed beforehand that all interference calls would be yours, then there is no argument. Would any BU agree to such mechanics being used? I seriously doubt it!

Steve, as the PU YOU are NOT the person best placed to make calls on the bases. That job generally falls to the BU because he IS that person. Yes, there are exceptions but there is also a clearly defined process for dealing with those exceptions - OBR 9.02(c) - and that process does NOT involve the PU unilaterally deciding that he had the better view and then poaching the BU's call! Whichever way you cut it, that is a NO-NO! (Seems like that's what was stated by another official way back at the beginning of this thread).

Hope this helps

Cheers