[Bfair]

Pete, being "right there" has nothing to do with this call if the BU's back is (or was) turned when the action occurs. Furthermore, to best judge what occurs you generally need to see what leads up to that action---something the BU hasn't seen when he immediately turns and there is a problem. For those reasons, I vehemently disagree with you that this would be the BU's call simply because the BU is "right there." The BU has not had time to see and perceive the action, and therefore the PU---who has seen it all---should jump on the call everytime the action occurs or has occurred behind the back of the BU.

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Steve, let me clarify speaking for the BU INSIDE the diamond.

First and foremost, interference on a batted ball when BU is "right there" is THEIR call. This is no dfferent then a steal attempt by R1 when BU is in "B" or "C". Is the PU going to make that call?

Here's a question for you, Pete............

You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you:


1. Let BU call this obstruction since he's closer to the play?
   
2. Let BU call this obstruciton since it's his call on the pickoff at 2B?
   
3. Let BU call this obstruction since it's flagrant and obvious?
   
4. Make the call of this infraction when you see it happen?

What's your answer Pete---and why?
I suspect most know what I would do as PU.

There are several situations where the BU can be "right there" (as you like to phrase it) and the PU should make the call. Examples of those will all include interference or obstruction calls where an umpire is not looking directly at the play in question while it's occurring---just as occurred in the plays we've discussed. The reason he's not looking at the play is that he has another responsibility typically related to watching the ball---such as staying out of the way of a batted ball, being responsible for a call on a batted ball elsewhere (i.e. making a call on a flyball), or merely watching a pitcher's pickoff move.

Interference and obstruction are not calls that are designated to either official, and therefore, the umpire seeing the infraction may and should call it with one exception. That exception being when another official is closer to the play,AND that other official is looking directly at the play as it occurs, AND he has had the oppotunity to see and weigh all factors of that play such that his "no call" is, indeed, his decision of what occurred.

This leads us to your next statement, Pete.............

Originally posted by PeteBooth
If it's a DP situation, meaning R1 No outs, then it's the PU's call for interference on the part of R1 since the BU is going to pivot after making the out call at second and getting ready for the banger at first, but in the situation described, R1/R2 the BU should have been in "C", therefore, all he had to do was turn watch the ball and would have been right there for the call.

IMO, wrong again. Although the Fed will teach for the PU to be aware of a sliding R1, it does not mean that he is the ONLY official that can make the interference call. In fact, Pete, with your more experienced crews the PU is seldom part of this call. Why is that? First, the PU is generally calling such FPSR interference only after a play at 2B is long over and the BU has turned to make a call at 1B.. Therefore, the BU typically calls any interference on close plays since the ball has not yet left the fielder's hand at the time of interference. IOW, the BU did not have to turn with the throw before the interference occurred, therefore, he is there, looking directly into the play, and seeing all factors of the play. Have you heard that criteria before, Pete? Experienced crews seldom have lower level games where the interference on the pivot man occurs long after the play at 2B is over---thus, the BU is generally making this call because he's looking at it when it happens.

Now you add:

Originally posted by PeteBooth
If initially, the BU says nothing, and the PU KNOWS for certain that there was interference, then the PU can step in and call it Emphatically, which if this is what happened, the coaches would not have been upset as they were.

Pete, at one point you’ve been saying the BU should be turning with the ball, seeing the interference, and making the call. Now here you are saying the PU should jump in if the BU doesn't call it. If you are telling me that the PU should call it because the BU didn’t, then I’ll disagree with you because that is overriding the BU’s call.

The PU should not override a BU's no-call when he's certain that the BU saw the entire play and decided not to call it. Let's take this play:

R1 only. F1 makes pickoff attempt where F3 immediately drops down and totally blocks 1B, but F3 must reach well away from his body to glove the throw from R1. R1 dives back into the base and would have easily returned safely before any tag had F3 not blocked him from reaching the base. BU calls out the diving R1.

Now, Pete, even if in the mind of the PU this was a flagrant and obvious obstruction of R1, the PU should not impose himself in R1's call. Why? Because R1 had the opportunity to see all factors related to that play. Thus, his no-call was, in fact, his decision that obstruction did not occur.

Therefore, in opposition to your above statement, I feel it is terribly wrong for a PU to come into a call where the BU has had full opporunity to see all the action, and for the PU to call an infraction when the BU has not. The real question is did the BU see the play or didn’t he. Unless proven that he did, assume that he did not when the play has occurred behind him. The PU must make this decision because he is the one not only seeing the action of the play occurring, but the timing of the BU turning with the ball. As the PU gains experience, he’ll better know what opportunity his BU has or has not had to see that play.

We view things very differently, Pete.
It's not the BU's proximity to the play (as you seem to think), but rather his opportunity to have seen all the action that was occurring. In the case of the PU's call at 2B on the FPSR, your view is a textbook view but not a realistic view of what occurs among trained officials. There is more to understanding the game of baseball than merely reading the words in the books............


Freix