|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 12:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Game 4
Farnsworth (F1) knocks down a groundball back to the mound. He fumbles with the ball, than throws to first, where Karros (F3) catches the ball cleanly for the out. Fick (BR) charges through the bag, and deliberately chops Karros (F3) on his glove arm. His glove, with the ball inside, go flying, and Karros (F3) grabs his arm in pain. First of all, can you even do that? I know you're allowed to smash the catcher all you want, but the first baseman? Second, the first base ump ruled Fick (BR) safe. Immediately after, without a conference, the home plate ump came flying up the line ruling Fick (BR) out. I thought you weren't supposed to flat out overrule? Anyone see it?
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray 
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 12:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the plate umpire called fick out for interfernce, if you watch the reply he is outside the running lane and he clearly interferes with Karros taking the throw. All in all a pretty dirty play and I hope Fick gets knocked down today.
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"." - Harry Caray -
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 12:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Malicious Intent
Now, I know this isn't high school ball, or little league ball. But I find it hard to believe that an intential karate chop of another player is perfectly fine in OBR. I'm not saying that's not how it is (I don't have the OBR), but I'm just a bit surprised.
I've been reading the other boards and what they have to say about the play (and the many others) after I posted this one here. It seems others were thinking of a possible ejection. Is there no ruling on malicious intent on a fielder other than F2 in the process of fielding a ball?
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 01:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder if there might have been an ejection if this had been a regular season game. Possible?
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 02:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry I don't know the players or teams involved a couple of years ago, but there was a play with a runner coming from first and F4 was going to tag the runner and throw to first. The runner threw a forearm into F4, flattening him. Nothing was said, no fines were levied. MLB has apparently discided that during a legal tag, all is fair.
There is one other thing to note though... The play above, and the typical catcher getting bowled over play, are "tag" situations. The ball must be controlled during the tag. The play at first was a force. (Okay, let's not discuss the "technically it's not a force at first" aspect right now.) What I'm getting at is that the instance F3 had control of the ball and was touching the bag, at that exact moment in time, the runner was out. So if the fielder was bowled over afterwards, then he has no onus to maintain control of the ball. I think it was the improper call. As for the plate umpire ruling immediately that there was a running lane violation, I agree that was proper procedure.
__________________
Dan
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 04:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lane violation doesn't work on this play because it happened right on top of the bag, where staying in the runner's lane is no longer required.
PU apparently called a generic, intentional interference which trumped U1's safe call. While I have been impressed with this year's playoff umpires' willingness to call the "out of the box" calls such as batter's interference, obstruction (both A and B), illegal pitches, etc., I think they still tend to wimp out on blatant unsportsmanlike conduct. A few years ago Roger Clemens threw a piece of a bat at Mike Piazza, and he should have been ejected for it but wasn't. Last night, when Fick karata chopped Karros with obvious intent, he should have been ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 04:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
PU Ruling
We don't really know why the home plate overturned the first base ump, it was speculation that it was because of a lane violation.
However, using SC Ump's example, there would be more reason for a penalty on behalf of Fick (BR). The instant that Karros (F3) caught the ball on the "force" at first, Fick (BR) was out. So, Fick (BR) is now a retired runner, and should remove himself to the dugout. However, while being a retired runner, with no play anywhere near him or affect him, he physically attacks an opposing player. With or without an OBR book with me, if a physical attack is made without a play (i.e. not bowling over a catcher), the *poop* hits the fan. But, then that begs the question, why were no penalties brought? [Edited by Cubbies87 on Oct 5th, 2003 at 04:08 PM]
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 05:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And though we can't expect the BR to disappear the instant he is out, the fact that he threw a forearm to dislodged the ball would have cause me to rule a possible out on any other player that had been in jeopardy. This of course is at my level of ball, not in MLB where they seem to feel malacious contact during the course of a play is not an offense. (You can hit an opposing player with a forearm, just don't drop your bat on home plate if you're unhappy with a strike call.)
__________________
Dan
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 05:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, at least they acted fast. MLB fined Fick this morning for an unspecified amount. The Braves also fined him.
[Edited by gsf23 on Oct 5th, 2003 at 09:01 PM]
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"." - Harry Caray -
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 10:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray
|
|
Sun Oct 05, 2003, 11:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a Braves fan, I was glad to see Fick fined. Didnt see that play til tonite, he should have been tossed for that hit. I was tossed for a similar act in 1967, never did that again!
Congrats Cubbies, Now do some fishing, and go all the way!
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003, 04:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I didn't see the play, but if it's not a lane violation, then why is the PU coming in on the BU's call? Wasn't there argument that the rules state that all calls on the bases belong to the BU? Could it be that interference and obstruction are not designated to any individual umpire? Should the PU have approached the BU after the play to "add the information" of what he felt he saw that apparently the BU didn't see? What about the mechanic of the PU making this call? Was it correct? Freix [Edited by bob jenkins on Oct 6th, 2003 at 09:02 AM]
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003, 10:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
That is why I am thinking that he called a running lane violation and interference because there was no conference about a catch or no catch. The PU just made the out call as soon as Fick hit Karros' arm. It was a quick one, but in one of the replays you can see the plate umpire pointing at the play right after Fick hits him. Can only assume he was pointing to call the out. Fick was outside the running lane the whole way down to first.
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"." - Harry Caray -
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003, 10:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you had seen it you wouldn't have any problem with the call.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003, 10:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The baserunner was Albert Belle, can't remember who the second baseman was though. I think it was Fernando Vina, but not sure.
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"." - Harry Caray -
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
