|
In some recent threads, the issue of concurrent jurisdiction has come up; BU has the right, and should make calls concerning the batter. Examples are batter is hit by a pitch, and a foul ball off the batter's foot. If BU sees these and PU doesn't, BU should make the call. These are instances where the ball is dead. Is this the key for concurrent jurisdiction?
What other situations concerning the batter call for concurrent jurisdiction? Another possible situation that comes to mind is catcher's interference. When I was coaching, bottom of last inning. We're behind by 1. R1 and R2, 2 outs, 2 strikes. 2nd in batting order is batting, my 3rd batter has already had 3 hits in the game. Batter swings, knocks the glove off the catcher's hand, PU calls strike 3. Of course I say something; PU says he did not see interference. I ask him to check BU, and he says he can't do this. After the game, both umpires admit there was interference. Could PU have legally checked with BU? or could BU have volunteered the information?
Another example is a ball in the dirt on third strike. PU may not have realized the pitch hit the dirt before the catcher gloved it. Should BU volunteer the call in this situation?
|