Warren, its difficult to debate with someone who denies what theyve said, even though its still there in print.
You stated
INTERFERENCE demands the presence of the ball in proximity", but when I provided you an example to disprove that statement you then stated
I DID say that interference could not usually occur without the ball in proximity. Warren, those statements have 2 different meanings here in the states. Perhaps you take them to mean the same, but you hadnt said could not usually occur; you had said demands.
You separate the preliminary action from the contact---which you refer to as the play.
The fact that your partner had his back to that preliminary action---which is highly pertinent to the play---apparently means nothing to you. The fact that your partner will likely make a blown call
due to what he did not see while his back was turned means nothing to you. After all, he saw the play---he was facing the contact when it occurred.
Still, you seem to agree that a PU should make an obstruction call to cover for his partner when his partners back is turned and BU is unable to witness the infraction. You apparently dont feel that to be illegal or inappropriate in that situation despite your claims that the BU is responsible for calls on the bases. Yet here you draw the line by allowing your partner to make a decision absent of the needed, pertinent information to make the right call merely because he turned in time to see the contact. You know there is good possibility he is making a wrong call because of information he missed while his back was turned to the action.
I attempt not to put my partner in that situation no differently than I take the call of obstruction when his back is turned.
Warren, you then make the accusation:
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.
No, Warren, I dont want to call everything on the diamond.
I dont believe Ive advocated that or implied it anywhere. If I have, please cite it.
I believe your statement was made for the pure purpose of being denigrating, and as your attempt to portray a false image not only of what weve been discussing, but my abilities as an umpire.
I believe weve included examples of exceptions in our discussions---my example of R2 pushing F6 when BUs back is turned, and your example of an obstruction occurring when BUs back is to the play. I also believe this play falls into the category of being an exception where the PU should make the call despite the BU being more proximate to the action
due to the fact that pertinent action occurred behind his back. I find my philosophy as highly consistent.
We certainly agree PU should take the call on obstruction when the BU does not witness the infraction. While you state you wouldnt make the call on R2 pushing F6 when you know BU didnt see that action, I find that totally inconsistent with your willingness to call obstruction when the BUs back is turned. You seem willing to approach your partner later with information he apparently didnt have, but Id suspect youd also agree that is not in accordance with 9.02c. Thus, youd be imposing yourself into his judgment. Youve also indicated in previous threads that youd not consider changing a call once a team appeals the judgment decision. Hmmmm, it appears if the team complained and our partner then sought your help, youd think your partner to be violating the rules. Why would you put your partner into that situation? I see inconsistency in your applications of the rules---especially in relation to your other previously stated beliefs and philosophies.
This call regarding R2 and F6 is moreso the responsibility of the PU vs. the BU when the PU is uncertain in knowing if the BU had his back turned to all the pertinent action. Its a known fact that BU had his back to at least a portion of the play. Too often the BU is left with only remnants of the action (the contact) in which to make his judgment. He has not witnessed your so called preliminary action pertinent to the proper decision.
The PU saw it all
.
I initiated this thread to show an example of where I knew my partners back had been to the action, and where there was good possibility that he missed the pertinent information to make the right call. Although I guessed he had turned in time to see that pertinent information---my guess was wrong. Still, my guess was not needed. I could have simply made that call myself and gotten the call right. I shouldnt put my partner in the position of making a decision when he knowingly had his back turned to the play. If Im to error, I will error on the side of aiding my partner and getting the call right.
In working 2 man mechanics, I firmly believe that when situations arise between R2 and F6, and when BU has had his back to that action, then the PU should take that call unless absolutely certain that the BU turned in time to witness all the action needed for the proper decision. The BU cant possibly judge action occrring behind him which he didnt see due to his use of proper 2 man mechanics.
Freix