Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by kylejt
"...to avoid the headache of making that call."
I don't see a problem with making that call.
|
The problem is that to make that call is to invite exactly what happened - a long visit by the manager. Terry Francona was on the field for quite awhile while the umpires explained and explained and explained. He still walked away shaking his head.
Whereas, if the umpires had simply waited to see if the contact affected play, I doubt anyone would've had a second thought. The play looked routine. The game would've continued without incident.
Quote:
Originally posted by kylejt
Don't call it, and F5 has to rush his throw, skys F3, the home crowd goes wild on the runs scored, and THEN call it?
|
But that's exactly what happened. The crowd was going wild, the run scored, and no one knew until the play was over that anything out of the ordinary had happened. The umpires had to call the runner who had scored back onto the field. In fact, the contact wasn't noticable in real-time on television. They had to slow motion replay to see what happened. That's how routine the play looked.
[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 02:53 AM]
|
I don't understand this thread at all, Jim. Interference in this case is an immediate call and any contact by a runner on a fielder fielding a batted ball is interference. Period. End of story. I don't CARE whether the subsequent throw is affected, cause I've already killed the ball.
The umpires can't help Francona understand faster? Maybe Francona has the problem, although I'll still admit I still don't like him because of his Phillies days 
--Rich
|
Before we dismiss Jim's "suggestion" out of hand, let's ask whether we might draw an analogy to the current technique used in basketball. Rich, you call that game, I know. So you're aware at the highest level of the philosophy known as the "patient" whistle or the "slow" whistle. Our CFO just wrote a piece about that. Jim Dixon covered it in depth a couple of years ago.
The idea is that there IS incidental contact, contact that has no effect on the play, even contact that looks illegal but isn't. That's why PBUC mandates the "That's nothing!" signal. (Now, in NCAA baseball, there is NO incidental contact: it's either obstruction or interference. But they stand alone.)
Someone said that though the contact didn't affect the play, it MIGHT have. The hasty "whistle" might also affect the play: The immediate dead ball prevents the defense from handling overzealous runners.
All of sports is moving to the advantage/disadvantage system of determining "fouls." I believe that's what Jim may have been suggesting.
I'm not saying the immediate call of dead ball is wrong. I'm saying that perhaps it's worthy of dissection, discussion. Don't dismiss change simply because it's change.