Quote:
Originally posted by Hayes Davis
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Personally, Mark, I would treat this the same as Umpire's Interference, which is the nearest rule that you could apply. The umpire interfered verbally with the true course of play.
Cheers,
Warren Willson
|
IMHO, this is a REAL stretch for umpire's interference. Umpire interference is described in 2.00(c); "UMPIRE'S INTERFERENCE occurs (1) When an umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher's throw attempting to prevent a stolen base, or (2) When a fair ball touches an umpire on fair territory before passing a fielder."
The described situation does not meet any requirements of the umpire interference rule.
|
Hayes,
The situation posed included a point not covered by the rules. It's a 9.01(c) judgment call.
Warren's answer was saying:
1. Consider that the plate umpire interfered with play.
2. Consider that the rulebook has only two references for umpire's interference.
3. Consider how the rulebook handles such umpire's interference plays when deciding your 9.01(c) judgment call.
It is a fair, equitable, and smart way to handle such a decision. Warren's advice is right on the money.
What would your solution be to the posted situation? How you would you handle it? Would it be different from Warren's? Please explain how and why.
It seems to me that the rulebook's guidance on similar interference does not allow for us to guess an out. We have to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense. That's what the rulebook seems to want - - in
both examples of umpire's interference that
are covered by the rules. I
must strongly endorse Warren's excellent answer in this thread.
Let's face it. Somebody's not going to be happy with our decision one way or another. This bad boo-boo is going to mean a headache for the PU no matter what. It would be difficult for me to ignore the rulebook's guidance in this area. It seems the only fair decision to make.