Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
I have INT also, in both cases, but let's discuss the bigger question that has been raised here.
Let's say you are BU, and with R1 stealing the batter interferes with catcher's throw. PU properly calls INT, then calls R1 out and leaves the batter at the plate. No one argues, clearly the defense is better off so if the defensive coach knows the rule he is not saying. Offensive coach clearly does not know the rule and PU does not either, but you the BU do.
No judgment call involved here, clearly rule mis-application. And some will stick that info in their pocket and post game this?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara
For instance, a few weeks ago...R2 stealing on the pitch with two outs, B3 swings at the pitch and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R3 and is interfered with by B2. PU calls runner out on the interference. I approach PU and discuss the situation with him. He corrected the call, B2 is out for interference. Are you saying I shouldn't correct that error? We should start the next inning off with B2 at bat? There is a difference between throwing the partner under the bus (ie "Hey Randy you're wrong!" from 30 feet away or telling the coach he screwed that call up) and getting the call right because of a rules interpretation/knowledge error.
-Josh
|
Both of these have the same key difference with the OP--this is a matter of enforcement, not of the application of the rule as to the circumstances of the play. In both of these cases, the correct call is made; it is the penalty that is incorrect. Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction--look at the more common example of balks and obstruction. Often, the calling umpire is not the only one that will have enforcement duties--if BU calls obstruction, PU will often have a better ability to determine the base to award in the case of that runner attempting to advance multiple bases. Likewise, if PU calls a balk, it is often BU that calls "Time" when appropriate and awards bases.