I don't do baseball (only football and basketball), but you've got to applaud the job done tonight by the ALCS crew. Great job all around.

WOW! They reversed Marsh's no-call to interference, which was EXACTLY the right call. Marsh was screened by Mientcivich's body and he couldn't see A-Rod's action.

Bush league move by A-Rod.

A-hole... i mean A-rod should have been ejected

I hope Windy was watching!
 

NO ONE reversed anything until Marsh came to West and asked for help.

Marsh made the original call. He was obviously screened, but it was his call and he made it. Joe West and ALL of the other umpires stayed out of it, until Francona came out. He tried to go to West, who sent him to Marsh. Marsh then called West over and got help. Then Marsh called A-Rod out.

EXACTLY the way it should be done. No ump jumped in on Marsh's call. Marsh asked for help, got it, and changed his own call.

Joe West did not come offer help until asked, even though he saw something Marsh did not. And even though other umps saw something (or they would not have convinced Marsh), the PU did not make the changed call, the ump that made it did it.

Well done.

And McCarver still butchered the description of the play and the rule.

In any other non-playoff game, I might say that also (not sure if I could get an ejection in the pros.) In fact, in a game last year with the Braves and (?), Robert Fick was ejected for the very same thing, although that was a regular season game.

What he said :)

Ficke's actions went FAR beyond what A-Rod did. Cox even sat Ficke down for his actions that day. Ficke did not slap the ball out of F3's hand, Ficke grabbed an outstretched arm and bent it backward.

Yes, A-Rod should be called out, but I don't think his actions came anywhere near ejection. He did not try to harm anyone, he tried to knock the ball loose. Sure, it was illegal, and he should be out. But he slapped at a glove, he didn't throw a forearm shiver at an opponent.

I hate the Yankees and not even I would have EJed A-Rod.

LOL!..

Hey, I'm from Huntsville and I'll be in ATL next Wednesday for the Queensryche show. It should be fun.

Definately a great job by this veteran crew.

A-rod is nothing more than a $250 cheater

Kudos to the crew.

Also props to Jeff Kellogg, doing a great job during a 6 hour marathon behind the plate Monday night.

He was going to be out anyhow - worth a shot.

Marsh signaled safe to mean "no tag" and the announcers wondered why he was calling safe when A-Rod hadn't touched first. Maybe the umps should demand announcer training in their next contract negotiations.

Well, I think the 'announcers' can get a mulligan here as it was Lieter [read: player], not McCarver or Buck, who wondered why he called him safe. McCarver quickly, and correctly, said he signaled 'safe' to mean 'no tag'.

I guess the "Get it Right" philosophy is working. My only question is C.C. Randy Marsh said in a press conference after the game that "the runner(s) must return to the base occupied at the time of the interference". If that's the case, why did Jeter get put back on first base rather than second base. It look like Jeter was already at second base by the time Arroyo attempted to tag Rodriguez (after all, it was a slow roller that Arroyo was going to flip the ball to first base when he realized that Mienkiewtz (sp?) was off the bag - he then reached to tag A-Rod). Anybody see or got anything different???

The "return to base occupied at time of interference" clause applies only if the runner in question has already achieved first base. In this case the interfernce occurred before the batter-runner reached first, thus the runner is returned to the last occupied base.

When the interference happened had all runners including the batter runner reached one base? No, that is why Jeter got sent back to first.

On the other hand when a team screws up like that, we need to punish them with the worst penalty.

I might be wrong but I am sticking to it.

You mean a $250,000,000 cheater.

I guess I'm a little confused on the interference penalty as it applies to other runners on base. When interference is called, do the runners return to the last base occupied at the time of pitch or at the time of the interference?

According to what Marsh said at the press conference, Jeter had to return to the last base occupied at the time of the interference - NOT time of pitch.

Can anyone help clarify - please site OBR rule references.
Thanks!

Hey, you can't ding all of the announcers for their lack of rule knowledge, just the Fox guys. Jon Miller has a great knowledge of the rules and studies the rule book, so don't put everyone in the McCarver trap.

OBR - 2.00 Definition of Terms
...
INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.
<<<<<
Looks perfectly OK for me.

Roman

Re: I hope Windy was watching!
 

I agree that this is the way that this particular event happened. The key here is that this was a judgement call by Marsh and he decided to get help.

Compare this to the homerun call earlier, this is a different set of circumstances. Homeruns are not judgement calls.

Do you see the difference in the two types of calls?

In the case of offensive interference is it not the case that the ball is immediately dead? That being the case the ruuner(s) return to thier base at TOP.

Also don't you think that the 1st base ump was out of position based on the way the play was developing? I think he should and easily could have positioned himself in foul territory. If he did that then he could have made the call without assitance from th PU. IMO opinion all of this huddling looks bad. Although I am pleased that the right calls were made.

Atl Blue,

Yes, I was watching. You continue to display your ignorance of my dialogue here. I have never, ever proposed challenging another official's call. On the contrary I have said many times how we handle it at our levels. I have for almost eight months been a proponent of getting the call right. These guys made their calls and then were men enough to accept assistance.

Be very careful putting words in my mouth. Our members are very familiar with the quote button. The challenge is out there, Georgia boy. You want to put words in my mouth. Where's your proof? Enough members here know what I've said all along.

Being stubborn and wrong costs a lot more than being stubborn and right!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gordon30307

Quote:

Also don't you think that the 1st base ump was out of position based on the way the play was developing? I think he should and easily could have positioned himself in foul territory.

Personally, I am not a big proponent of taking calls in foul territory because I don't like putting the base between myself and the play (meaning F3's foot or the pitcher's foot stepping on the inside part of the base). Moreover, the play changed at the last second from a toss to F3 (force play) to F1 making the play himself (tag play). Two different plays that require different positioning by the BU at first base. In his defense, it looked like Marsh tried to make an adjustment by taking a "read step" to open his angle but F3 must have blocked his view at the last second. Just my observations

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sal Giaco

Quote:

Originally posted by gordon30307 Quote: Also don't you think that the 1st base ump was out of position based on the way the play was developing? I think he should and easily could have positioned himself in foul territory. Personally, I am not a big proponent of taking calls in foul territory because I don't like putting the base between myself and the play (meaning F3's foot or the pitcher's foot stepping on the inside part of the base). Moreover, the play changed at the last second from a toss to F3 (force play) to F1 making the play himself (tag play). Two different plays that require different positioning by the BU at first base. In his defense, it looked like Marsh tried to make an adjustment by taking a "read step" to open his angle but F3 must have blocked his view at the last second. Just my observations

You make some valid points. I saw Marsh lean to get a better look. But what bothered me was six umpires discussing a play that really only involved PU and First Base Ump. It just looked like mass confusion to me.

Gordon,
Since the two leagues merged and the control of the umpiring is now under the direction of MLB, I think this is way it's going to be. We (baseball umpires) have often criticized football officials for "huddling up" but times have changed and since MLB is signing the checks, the umpires are doing what is asked of them. It may not look good, but to MLB, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I think their (MLB's) philosophy is "get it right" even if it looks bad. Like everything else, there are + & - depending how and when it's used.

Had we had the same huddle 19 years ago as we had last night, the St. Louis Cardinals may have been 1985 World Series Champions.

I am not so sure about that. I do not see anyone getting help on a simple out call at first. I can see how it could happen on an interference call where an umpire was screened, but not a situation like that. I am a Cardinal fan and wish that play was called right, but even I can recognize that might not have been an appropriate situation to ask for help. If that call would be subjected to debate, all those close calls would be up for debate. And I pretty sure most umpires would not ask for help on those type of plays.

Peace

I don't think all 6 huddled up to make the call. I think the call was made by the PU after asked for help from the BU. After that, I think the six got together to discuss the rule--what happens to Jeter? Does he go to second, or does he go to first?

Of course, I doubt any of the other umpires besides the PU and BU at 1st were discussing the call because they shouldn't have been looking at it. However, in football (which is the sport I do) the officials will often come together not to discuss the call but to discuss the rule to make sure we all agree we're applying it correctly.

I totally agree with this. That is exactly what officials do in football that did not see the call. They provide other information to help point everyone in the proper direction. I would also guess that the umpires on the foul line probably had some idea where Jeter was located on the base paths and what the rules that could be involved.

Peace

Todd,
I thought that was a nice compliment you gave to start this thread - it seems to have a little more meaning when it comes from an offical who works other sports.

Just a thought, Sal...

I've noticed that you have come around to what I've been proposing for some time now.

It was inevitable; baseball is evolving and umpires are more accountable than ever. Fans blame us for kicking calls that "cost the team a championship", "ended a great streak by ringing him up", "cost my kid a scholarship because you can't call a strike", et al. The pressure and scrutiny have increased at the LL, HS, College and Pro levels.

You know that I think the crew did a great job fixing that mess. I thought Todd's comment was genuine, as well. However, I take more satisfaction when a fellow baseball umpire tells me that I did a great job than a non-baseball umpire. This is not a slight on Todd, I don't know him and assume that he only meant well. But, if I go to the other Boards, I can expect someone will say, "You don't even work this sport, what do you know?" No matter whether I think the official did well or not. You've seen it happen many times. I appreciate Todd's candor, but it shouldn't matter that he works multiple sports. It should only matter that he said something nice. What do you think?

WCB,
I agree with you as well. Compliments from officials in general, regardless if they work the sport or not, are nice to hear. The only one's I take with a grain of salt are from a player/coach from the WINNING team. Although I certainly don't stick around after the game for pats on the back, it's nice if you pass by the LOSING manager as you're exiting the field and he says "nice job back there". The reality is we are in a thankless advocation and if we judge our performance by the compliments we receive as we leave the field, I would have quit 13 yrs ago :)

I GUARANTEE they did not huddle 6 umpires to decide where to put Jeter. These guys are Major League Umpires. I'm sure that they ALL knew the rule and where to put Jeter.

They huddled before making the decision. I don't know why it took all 6, but maybe they have decided that if 2 need to huddle to discuss a possible change, that all should, to get input from as many people as possible.

PS - I think the RFU likely had a decent view of the play as well.

And I'll disagree with you--even though I'm ignorant on baseball umpiring.

A good example is two friday nights ago our crew had a weird enforcement on a penalty in a varsity football game. Our WH knew the enforcement, our Umpire knew the enforcement, and the WH threw the flag. But they still called the rest of us in, and discussed it just to make sure we were ALL in agreement and ALL on the same page. Maybe it's different in baseball, but who knows. Even though these guys are the best umpires they can find--they're prone to making mistakes (see Tampa Bay v. Indianapolis MNF last year).

What other reason would they have for calling all six umpires together?

"Hey, check out the hottie in section 104!"

"Candlesticks make great wedding gifts."

Don't worry about being a football guy who isn't sure what is happening on the baseball field, it has yet to stop Jeff Rutledge.







...that baby is outta here!

You and Bob Lyle. Just a coupla class acts.

More of the same.
 

Windy,

I will put my reputation as an official up against what people think of you any day. ;)

Peace

SouthGA - you had, as you say, a WEIRD situation, and gathered to make sure you all agreed on the enforcement.

Last night, they had a very normal, very standard enforcement. Interference by the batter-runner is extremely easy to enforce, and they did NOT need to huddle to talk about that. I'm sure the huddle was of the "what did you see" variety.

Maybe that is what Sandy Alderson wants them to do. I do agree that it might not be the best procedure, but I can see why they did it. I heard the situation on Radio and know there was some argument from the teams. Was it possible they were huddling to prevent things getting out of hand because of an argument?

Peace

Jurassic,
That post never mentioned you..why would you respond except to throw a stone and run. You are as guilty as anyone of mucking up the swimming hole.

Jeff Rutledge,
Let's put your reputation up against mine. Who am I?
You seem to be pretty certain lately. Throw my name out there and I'll throw my resume up here for all to say. It seems that more than a few people would be interested. Come on, put your money where your mouth is.

Secondly, I took a chance in publishing a risque new mechanic and asking my colleagues to give it a try. From the get go, you've argued that it goes against everything you've been taught, shown and talked about. Well, enough people have now seen that I actually knew what I was talking about for the last eight months and we have yet to see one post that shows a logical stance from you. As our democratic Presidential candidate said, "It's one thing to be certain. It's another to be certain and wrong." You were challenged earlier to provide evidence to bolster your claims. I'm still waiting. We're still waiting.

Windy, you've very conveniently forgotting that our old argument was whether a basketball official could <b>OVERRULE</b> another basketball official. You said that they could OVERRULE! Now you go ahead and try and apply that same philosophy to the situation last night. If Randy Marsh said that he DIDN'T miss that call, could Joe West have <b>OVERRULED</b> Marsh? Somehow I don't think so. Neither Jeff or myself ever said that the officials shouldn't get together, and the calling official shouldn't change his call to get it right if he wasn't sure of his call, and got new info. We both said that you couldn't overrule another official in basketball though. Quit trying to re-write history to bolster your arguments.

As for the name-calling, you're doing it to Jeff Rutledge again- see your post in this thread of 3:03pm today. And again, you did it with no justification, just like Bob Lyle did in another post. You two are a good pair when it comes to that type of unprofessional behaviour. Jmo, whether either of you like it or not.

PS- the word is "risky", not "risque".

I have been saying that for a long time. ;)


I really do not care what your resume is in baseball. All I know is that no one thinks you are the person you claim to be. Remember, you stated your association affiliation and have given some idea where you live. It is not hard for those around to figure out there is no one with that resume. And having said that, there are a lot of guys that work Minor League ball, but there is no one that claims to have the resume of both Minor League ball and D1 ball at the same time. Maybe they are wrong, but they sure do not see anyone that even comes close to that. Talk to them, not me. I am just repeating what I have been told and what I have experienced.

I guess reading is fundamental. I have never said it goes against everything I have been taught nor does it go against my philosophy on officiating as a whole. And considering that I work 3 sports, I can think of many examples that I have applied the "get it right" philosophy in all those sports in this calendar year. And in baseball I had to use that mechanic several times to help partners and them helping me. Not sure what part of your body you pulled that out of.

I would be careful who you seem to look to as supporting your position. I see few people telling you that you share their point of view. I think the bottom line is you have never listened to anyone else's point of view but your own and really have not understood what anyone else has said. The very reason you have been laughed off the other boards when trying to use your "baseball logic" to the other sports. But this has been an interesting debate.


Waiting for what? You keep referencing the pros as if that is the standard we all should follow. Well considering that logic does not apply to any other sport that I am aware of, you keep talking about the pros as if that applies to the two man most of us work on a Spring afternoon. You are talking about the MLB playoffs that have 6 umpires to get together as compared to two umpires with less than 10 years combined and how they should handle similar situations. I have always stated and they followed the exact same procedure that I have advocated. The calling umpires asked for help and they got it. They also had a fellow umpires that were in position to help them out. If in the A-Rod situation, it is very possible in a 2 man system, most PU would not even be able to help out the base umpire on that exact call if he needed the help. The only sport that I work that we could have a similar discussion about what the pros do as it relates to what the amateurs do is basketball. I work 3 Person in HS just like the pros. And even in basketball we many mechanical differences and rules difference that apply. So if you want to compare MLB to HS baseball that is your prerogative. I just think that is a very silly comparison and you seem to be the main person thinking that works. I do not have to work with you, so I really do not care what you do.

Peace

With regard to what happened during the huddle, if anyone has tivo, take a look.

What I saw was a couple of seconds into the huddle, one of the umpires (it was not West or Marsh; I think it was actually Nelson) made a gesture toward the dugout and appeared to say something like "so [Jeter] goes back" and you couldn't see the rest.

I turned immediately to my wife and said, "A Rod is out; their talking about putting Jeter at first." They continued to caucus for a while, but at least the way I saw it Marsh had announced his revised call very quickly and the huddle continued, at least in part to discuss the distinction in the rule between a TOP resoration and the BR failing to reach first.

Re: More of the same.
 

I'll put my money on Rut, but this is like Martha Stewart saying she is not as bad as Enron chairman Ken Lay. What kind of misfit would want to brag about that?

Re: Re: More of the same.
 

Bob,

You are like the George Bush trying to tell other countries about morality and freedom. There is a reason they do not listen to him and there is a reason I do not listen to your sorry behind either. <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_4_131.gif' alt='' border=0></a>

Peace

Jurassic,
Your basketball example has already worn thin on all of us here. Others have already pointed that out, but you can't figure it out.

The word is "risque". It is a cultured way of turning a simple phrase. I believe that if you were to ever leave your double wide, you may find that the world now has color TV and your Klan membership is a bad thing! Judging people and then chastising others for doing the same thing is pretty hypocritical. JMHO


I'm still waiting to weigh my reputation and resumé (the French way, Jurassic) against our you Rut. Bob Jenkins seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the identity crisis. I suggest that you query him if you stack up on the field. You'll probably want to be sitting down, though.

Now, let's get back to baseball.

You guys crack me up. The posts on this board are all over the spectrum from clueless, ignorant, informative, nasty, useful etc. Guess what.... so are the people who write the posts. I fell victim to the "sillyness" a couple of weeks back and now I just sit back and laugh about it. The key is to not only consider the source but also the writing CONTENT of that source.

I remember a guy who once told me... "Sal, I've been umpiring since you were in a crib" (about 25 yrs). At the time, I thought well I guess he really knows what he's talking about. As time went on and I got more training, I realized that this guy, who judged his ability and knowledge of umpiring according to the number of years on the field, had been making the SAME mistakes, over and over again, for the past 25+ years. Experience can be deceiving but what a man preaches and practices is not.

Windy, maybe my basketball example has worn thin, but you're still very conveniently refusing to deal with the original argument. You stated that one basketball official could overrule another. Well, you got laughed off the basketball board on that one. That was after you got laughed off of the football forum too, right? Not trying to get a call right was NEVER a part of the ongoing argument, no matter how hard you try to make it.

"Klan Membership", Windy? "Klan Membership"? Uh, what race exactly am I? Do you really know and how do you really know? After the way that you've gone after Jeff all over the internet, and all the names that you've called him in the past, are you really sure that you shoulda brought something like that up? Name-calling doesn't win arguments, Windy, no matter how good you are at it. And you're world class.