Red Sox vs Devil Rays - 8/12/04

[Jim Porter]

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs. Manny Ramirez is the batter and he hits a high chop between shortstop and third base. R2 and F5 make contact, but it doesn't really seem to affect the play as F5 still fields the ball cleanly and makes the out at first. R3 scored and R2 ended up on third.

But the third base umpire called interference on R2, immediately killing the play. He called out R2, put R3 back on third, and awarded Manny first.

I wonder how many of us would've delayed our interference call just a little bit to avoid the headache of making that call. I wonder how many of us would've justified our call by saying the contact was incidental since F5 made the play cleanly.

[bbump82]

I know I would have unless I knew it was intentional.
All runners advanced at least one base and an out was recorded at 1B, we have incidental contact and play on.

[kylejt]

"...to avoid the headache of making that call."

I don't see a problem with making that call. Don't call it, and F5 has to rush his throw, skys F3, the home crowd goes wild on the runs scored, and THEN call it?

Too many things to go haywire after it should be called. Kill it, and call it. Don't, and hope for the best. It may not initially seem that F5 got effected. But if he doesn't make that play to first, his manager will want a word with you.

Man, if you've got contact, and no, intention is not a critera here, that's interference. I hope I wouldn't be afraid to call it. BR vs. F2 is the exception here.


(edited for horrific grammer)

[Edited by kylejt on Aug 13th, 2004 at 12:27 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by kylejt
"...to avoid the headache of making that call."

I don't see a problem with making that call.

The problem is that to make that call is to invite exactly what happened - a long visit by the manager. Terry Francona was on the field for quite awhile while the umpires explained and explained and explained. He still walked away shaking his head.

Whereas, if the umpires had simply waited to see if the contact affected play, I doubt anyone would've had a second thought. The play looked routine. The game would've continued without incident.

Originally posted by kylejt
Don't call it, and F5 has to rush his throw, skys F3, the home crowd goes wild on the runs scored, and THEN call it?

But that's exactly what happened. The crowd was going wild, the run scored, and no one knew until the play was over that anything out of the ordinary had happened. The umpires had to call the runner who had scored back onto the field. In fact, the contact wasn't noticable in real-time on television. They had to slow motion replay to see what happened. That's how routine the play looked.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 02:53 AM]

[jicecone]

Hey, thats why they get the big bucks.

If the rules want it called differently, change them.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

The problem is that to make that call is to invite exactly what happened - a long visit by the manager. Terry Francona was on the field for quite awhile while the umpires explained and explained and explained. He still walked away shaking his head.

Whereas, if the umpires had simply waited to see if the contact affected play, I doubt anyone would've had a second thought. The play looked routine. The game would've continued without incident.

But that's exactly what happened. The crowd was going wild, the run scored, and no one knew until the play was over that anything out of the ordinary had happened. The umpires had to call the runner who had scored back onto the field. In fact, the contact wasn't noticable in real-time on television. They had to slow motion replay to see what happened. That's how routine the play looked.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 02:53 AM]

I don't understand this thread at all, Jim. Interference in this case is an immediate call and any contact by a runner on a fielder fielding a batted ball is interference. Period. End of story. I don't CARE whether the subsequent throw is affected, cause I've already killed the ball.

The umpires can't help Francona understand faster? Maybe Francona has the problem, although I'll still admit I still don't like him because of his Phillies days

--Rich

[Gee]

Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers.

Are you going to allow a run to score in order to avoid a confrontation with Franco, not me. The interference might not have effected the play but how do you know that at the time of contact? If the throw happened to go off target what do you do then? Could be a real blowout.

I don't know what Franco's exact point was but the umpire did exactly what he was supposed to do. Franco came out last week on a jumpstep pickoff that went out of play. U1 awarded R1 second. Franco wanted two. Franco was thrown and I wish Henry would do the same thing, the guy belongs in T-ball. G.
---------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jim Porter

The problem is that to make that call is to invite exactly what happened - a long visit by the manager. Terry Francona was on the field for quite awhile while the umpires explained and explained and explained. He still walked away shaking his head.

Whereas, if the umpires had simply waited to see if the contact affected play, I doubt anyone would've had a second thought. The play looked routine. The game would've continued without incident.

But that's exactly what happened. The crowd was going wild, the run scored, and no one knew until the play was over that anything out of the ordinary had happened. The umpires had to call the runner who had scored back onto the field. In fact, the contact wasn't noticable in real-time on television. They had to slow motion replay to see what happened. That's how routine the play looked.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 02:53 AM]

[kylejt]

I'm just guessing, since I didn't see the play you're talking about, but if the umpire is calling and killing this play nobody's seeing it right away. U3 is behind third, and nobody's watching him, much less hearing him in such an environment. Big play, big crowd, and U3 who's away from the ball is raising his hands.

Either way some manager is not going to be happy. That's a given. But a runner contacting a fielder making a play on a batted ball just has to called.

How could you NOT call it?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I don't understand this thread at all, Jim. Interference in this case is an immediate call and any contact by a runner on a fielder fielding a batted ball is interference. Period. End of story. I don't CARE whether the subsequent throw is affected, cause I've already killed the ball.

The umpires can't help Francona understand faster? Maybe Francona has the problem, although I'll still admit I still don't like him because of his Phillies days

--Rich

Before we dismiss Jim's "suggestion" out of hand, let's ask whether we might draw an analogy to the current technique used in basketball. Rich, you call that game, I know. So you're aware at the highest level of the philosophy known as the "patient" whistle or the "slow" whistle. Our CFO just wrote a piece about that. Jim Dixon covered it in depth a couple of years ago.

The idea is that there IS incidental contact, contact that has no effect on the play, even contact that looks illegal but isn't. That's why PBUC mandates the "That's nothing!" signal. (Now, in NCAA baseball, there is NO incidental contact: it's either obstruction or interference. But they stand alone.)

Someone said that though the contact didn't affect the play, it MIGHT have. The hasty "whistle" might also affect the play: The immediate dead ball prevents the defense from handling overzealous runners.

All of sports is moving to the advantage/disadvantage system of determining "fouls." I believe that's what Jim may have been suggesting.

I'm not saying the immediate call of dead ball is wrong. I'm saying that perhaps it's worthy of dissection, discussion. Don't dismiss change simply because it's change.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Before we dismiss Jim's "suggestion" out of hand, let's ask whether we might draw an analogy to the current technique used in basketball. Rich, you call that game, I know. So you're aware at the highest level of the philosophy known as the "patient" whistle or the "slow" whistle. Our CFO just wrote a piece about that. Jim Dixon covered it in depth a couple of years ago.

The idea is that there IS incidental contact, contact that has no effect on the play, even contact that looks illegal but isn't. That's why PBUC mandates the "That's nothing!" signal. (Now, in NCAA baseball, there is NO incidental contact: it's either obstruction or interference. But they stand alone.)

Someone said that though the contact didn't affect the play, it MIGHT have. The hasty "whistle" might also affect the play: The immediate dead ball prevents the defense from handling overzealous runners.

All of sports is moving to the advantage/disadvantage system of determining "fouls." I believe that's what Jim may have been suggesting.

I'm not saying the immediate call of dead ball is wrong. I'm saying that perhaps it's worthy of dissection, discussion. Don't dismiss change simply because it's change.

Carl:

I simply can't agree. Until baseball decides that we can "throw the flag" or "blow the whistle" later after judging whether the contact had an effect on the play, we make the call right away. If it's deliberate interference, then get another out. If it's not deliberate, the defense isn't ENTITLED to another out, even if they might have gotten more than one.

The analogy you make is interesting, but irrelevant. The runner is required to run in a fashion so that he doesn't interfere with the fielder. If there's contact between a fielder and a runner in this way, I can't ever picture such contact as being incidental.

The slow whistle in basketball is crucial because of the Tower principle (advantage/disadvantage) that is actually part of the written language of the rules and interpretations of basketball. Football has similar language, as do hockey and soccer. There are even instances on the baseball field where contact is incidental (or a trainwreck). This isn't one of them.

Making the call after the infielder's throw is launched into the seats would've resulted in as lengthy of an argument -- from the other manager, of course.

--Rich

[Jim Porter]

We all know that obstruction was once an immediate dead ball. Then some rules committee decided one day that a delayed dead ball would be wiser. Why not a delayed dead ball with interference? A lot of umpires already do it. Umpires I know -- possibly even myself -- would've just let the play go. Even one umpire at least had the confidence in himself to admit as much right here in this thread. So I guess I can't understand why folks think I'm coming from left field on this one.

Gee said, "Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers."

Gee, I wasn't aware contact was illegal. The last time I checked the definition of interference contact wasn't even mentioned. Instead words like, "interferes with," and, "obstructs," and "impedes," and, "hinders," are mentioned. Since when does contact alone automatically mean interference? And how can any umpire possibly know whether a fielder has been impeded, obstructed, hindered, or interfered with in his attempt to make a play if play is killed before an attempt is even made?

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
We all know that obstruction was once an immediate dead ball. Then some rules committee decided one day that a delayed dead ball would be wiser. Why not a delayed dead ball with interference? A lot of umpires already do it. Umpires I know -- possibly even myself -- would've just let the play go. Even one umpire at least had the confidence in himself to admit as much right here in this thread. So I guess I can't understand why folks think I'm coming from left field on this one.

Gee said, "Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers."

Gee, I wasn't aware contact was illegal. The last time I checked the definition of interference contact wasn't even mentioned. Instead words like, "interferes with," and, "obstructs," and "impedes," and, "hinders," are mentioned. Since when does contact alone automatically mean interference? And how can any umpire possibly know whether a fielder has been impeded, obstructed, hindered, or interfered with in his attempt to make a play if play is killed before an attempt is even made?

Jim;

I interpreted you initial post a little differently so I'll respond along those lines.

More than half of all umpires I know, would not make the call initially. Only half of the remaining umpires would make the call if the ball was thrown away. Perhaps 20% of umpires would make the immediately just like the MLB umpire did.

I am one of those 20%. My philosophy is to jump on an out when I can get it. We get paid to make the tough calls and I like outs.

I find that it is simpler to call the game by the rules unless neither team expects the call. In this case, I have to make a decision as to whether I want to have a heated discussion with the offense or defensive coach. In this case, I feel on much firmer ground arguing that it should be an out. The strict reading of the rulebook backs me up.

Peter

[Gee]

Jim,

There are several ways that a runner can interfere with a fielder. Some are called incidental contact, some are overlooked and others are not even considered, especially by MLU's.

But when you clearly see a runner actually make contact with a fielder who is protected and positioning himself to field the ball I see no alternative but to kill the play. If for no other reason, self preservation.

I realize that contact is not needed but it sure adds a whole bunch to the calling umpires position.

It seems your main point in not calling it was to avoid a confrontation with Franco. Do you really think that BIG LOU would have just sat there in the dugout blowing bubbles and watch that run score? Not in your life.

When they change the rules and allow a delayed interference call on this play I'll do it but until that time I've got a golden out. G.

---------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jim Porter
We all know that obstruction was once an immediate dead ball. Then some rules committee decided one day that a delayed dead ball would be wiser. Why not a delayed dead ball with interference? A lot of umpires already do it. Umpires I know -- possibly even myself -- would've just let the play go. Even one umpire at least had the confidence in himself to admit as much right here in this thread. So I guess I can't understand why folks think I'm coming from left field on this one.

Gee said, "Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers."

Gee, I wasn't aware contact was illegal. The last time I checked the definition of interference contact wasn't even mentioned. Instead words like, "interferes with," and, "obstructs," and "impedes," and, "hinders," are mentioned. Since when does contact alone automatically mean interference? And how can any umpire possibly know whether a fielder has been impeded, obstructed, hindered, or interfered with in his attempt to make a play if play is killed before an attempt is even made?

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Gee
It seems your main point in not calling it was to avoid a confrontation with Franco. Do you really think that BIG LOU would have just sat there in the dugout blowing bubbles and watch that run score? Not in your life.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the umpire hadn't called interference and the play was allowed to stand not another word would've been said about it by anyone -- not Lou Piniella, not anyone. It was a routine-looking play interrupted by a surprise interference call. I'd even be willing to bet Lou Piniella didn't even know R2 and F5 had made contact. It required slow motion replay just to see it on television even with a favorable camera angle.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
I find that it is simpler to call the game by the rules unless neither team expects the call. In this case, I have to make a decision as to whether I want to have a heated discussion with the offense or defensive coach. In this case, I feel on much firmer ground arguing that it should be an out. The strict reading of the rulebook backs me up.

Peter

In the men's amateur, Legion, Sunset, MSBL, and other adult leagues here in Rhode Island, interference on that play absolutely would've been completely unexpected by both sides. I further believe, depending on the offensive coach, making that interference call would be to invite misery on oneself. Making that kind of call on such a routine-looking play here would lead to a long and ugly confrontation, and paperwork after the game.

I'm not afraid of making the tough calls, and I'm not afraid of confrontation. But I also like to achieve a balance between interjecting myself into the game with an unexpected call, versus allowing the game to be what the participants want and expect. I think many of us do that, and I think this is one area where it comes into play.