[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, it’s difficult to debate with someone who denies what they’ve said, even though it’s 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 hadn’t said “could not usually occur”; you had said “demands.”

You continue to take my statements out of context to try to make it appear as though I have contradicted myself. Let me make it perfectly clear for you, hopefully for the last time:

1. OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE cannot occur without the ball in proximity. Why? Because the fielder interferred with has to be in the act of making a play or attempting to make a play on the ball, whether batted or thrown.

In my experience, debating issues with you usually ends up a bit like performing microsurgery on the text of my own posts. What I was denying was your misconstruction placed on my words. I hope that has now been clarified. Please try to understand what I'm saying from my perspective, rather than putting your own constructions on my words.

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

NO, I separate the "preliminary action" from the "play or attempted play" on the ball. You are the one who brought the word "contact" into the debate.

YES, the preliminary action IS "highly pertinent" to the play, but in your original example it was NOT a part of the fielder's legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball. You clearly said as much in your original scenario. When your fielder "veered" toward the runner he was simply NOT in the act of making a play on the batted ball! Instead he was probably in the act of moving to a place where he could obstruct the runner.

I don't consider your partner's call a "blown call". He just didn't have all of the available information at the time he had to make HIS call. You had information that would have helped him, but it was NOT YOUR CALL to make so you have to wait until he asks you for it. You may NOT legally usurp your partner's call. Why?

1. When you observed the fielder "veering" toward the runner, he had as yet committed no offense.

2. When you observed the fielder make contact with the runner, the offense was probably obstruction based on 1 above BUT since the contact clearly occurred within your BU partner's field of vision it was NOT YOUR CALL to make - even though your partner didn't have all the information available.

3. When your partner correctly made his interference call, based on what HE saw of the play, your additional information became vitally important to getting the decision correct - but NOT before that point.

You cannot have known what your partner would call until he actually called it, and you cannot VOLUNTEER your vital information until your partner has asked for it as 9.02(c) requires. Admit it, that is NOT YOUR CALL!

Originally posted by Bfair
Still, you seem to agree that a PU should make an obstruction call to cover for his partner when his partner’s back is turned and BU is unable to witness the infraction. You apparently don’t 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.

No, by your own admission you attempt to prejudge what your partner might call, assume he will call it incorrectly and then poach his call from him. You cannot KNOW that your partner didn't see the fielder's preliminary actions until he makes his call. Have some faith in your partner. He may even be a better umpire than you!

Originally posted by Bfair
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 don’t want to call everything on the diamond.
I don’t believe I’ve advocated that or implied it anywhere. If I have, please cite it.

Sure. See the above statements, only you have attempted to dress it up by saying "I attempt not to put my partner in that situation..." as though poaching your partner's calls is somehow doing him a favor!

Originally posted by Bfair
I believe we’ve included examples of “exceptions” in our discussions---my example of R2 pushing F6 when BU’s back is turned, and your example of an obstruction occurring when BU’s 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.

Your example of R2 pushing F6 when BU's back is turned was too imprecise to be useful. The play may or may not be interference based on umpire judgement as to the proximity of the ball and the push's presumed effect on the fielder's ability to field the ball. It is a judgement call that rightfully belongs to the BU! My response was to say nothing and wait until I'm asked for my input. That is the response that OBR 9.02(c) requires in BOTH of the interference examples you have provided.

OTOH, obstruction "off the ball" is a LIVE ball situation that has to be called by someone. Both umpires have equal jurisdiction and if your partner doesn't call it, or at least acknowledge the act with a call of "That's NOTHING", then you have to call it. That is NOT the same situation as the two interference cases presented at all! Why?

1. With such INTERFERENCE the proximity of the ball is required AND the ball is immediately dead when the offense is acknowledged. Your BU partner should be watching that, as he follows the ball.

2. With such OBSTRUCTION the absence of the ball is required AND the ball remains alive when the offense is acknowledged. Your BU partner may NOT be watching that, as he follows the ball.

IOW, the "off-the-ball" obstruction case allows you to advise everyone, including your partner, that you saw the offense without killing all subsequent play. You can't do that with interference.

Originally posted by Bfair
We certainly agree PU should take the call on obstruction when the BU does not witness the infraction. While you state you wouldn’t make the call on R2 pushing F6 when you know BU didn’t see that action, I find that totally inconsistent with your willingness to call obstruction when the BU’s back is turned.

Then you don't really understand the important differences between interference and obstruction. See above for a concise explanation.

Originally posted by Bfair
You seem willing to approach your partner later with information he apparently didn’t have, but I’d suspect you’d also agree that is not in accordance with 9.02c. Thus, you’d be imposing yourself into his judgment.

Putting words in my mouth #4:

1. I DID NOT say I would "approach" my partner with information he doesn't have. I DID say I would find a way of letting him know I had information that might help him. We do that here by means of an agreed signal that means "I can help", but it is only used AFTER the call has been made.

2. I DID NOT say that you couldn't "impose" yourself into your partner's judgement. I DID say you couldn't do so until after HE ASKS you!

Originally posted by Bfair
You’ve also indicated in previous threads that you’d 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, you’d 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.

Okay, here we go arguing OLD issues that you simply can't get over. Asking your partner what he saw on an INTERFERENCE vs OBSTRUCTION call is clearly NOT the same as getting help on a pulled foot AFTER you've already made the Safe/Out call! On any such interference the ball is DEAD. There is no subsequent action to be impacted. I didn't say getting the call "right" wasn't important. I did say there was a time and place for getting help, and some of the times you want to do that I consider entirely inappropriate, even "illegal" by the rule book definition, for various reasons. I will NOT be drawn into that OLD debate here and now.

Originally posted by Bfair
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. It’s 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………….

The call you described is in NO WAY the "responsibility of the PU", however much you might want it to be. I have cited OBR 9.04 to establish that as a fact under the rules. BU's back was NOT turned at the moment of the contact, so PU cannot make the appropriate obstruction call secure in the knowledge that the BU did not see the obstruction. He saw it, but it looked to him like interference.

The preliminary action was NOT a part of the play or attempted play on the ball that was allegedly interfered with, so there is no justification for the PU to call anything earlier than that moment of contact.

Your apparent obsession with "protecting" your partner from making a wrong call is really nothing more than your underlying belief that YOU are in the best position to call EVERYTHING you see on the diamond, and you don't trust your partner to get it "ultimately correct". Note those words. They come from the updated version of the General Instructions to Umpires found in the NAPBL/PBUC Manual, and not from the OLD and OUTDATED version found following OBR 9.05. That is also and "OLD debate" into which I will not be drawn here and now.

Originally posted by Bfair
I initiated this thread to show an example of where I knew my partner’s 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 shouldn’t put my partner in the position of making a decision when he knowingly had his back turned to the play. If I’m to error, I will error on the side of aiding my partner and getting the call right.

Crap, Steve! You initiated this thread to enlist support for your flawed position taken in debate against Jim Porter, and looking for confirmation that you could usurp your (lesser) partner's calls when you felt like he might have "missed" something. That's simply not allowed under the rules. You are NOT doing your partner any favors by poaching his calls, so please stop trying to make it sound as though you are.

Originally posted by Bfair
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 can’t possibly judge action occrring behind him which he didn’t see due to his use of proper 2 man mechanics.

If you believe that then you'd be WRONG - morally, ethically and under the rules of the game you are required to administer. It was NOT YOUR CALL to make. No amount of blustering verbage will change that fact.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Sep 13th, 2003 at 06:33 PM]