Interference on A-Rod, Game 6 ALCS

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by greymule This morning Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby were discussing the play on WABC.

Curtis Sliwa?? the founder of the Gaurdian Angels??
Was he complaining that A-Rod's chop was a self-defense
move??!!

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Rich,
Having worked in stadiums with more than a few thousand people screaming, I can assure you that those guys can and do "Say and Display". It has been taught since day one in school. To think otherwise would be to question why would we even bother calling strikes and balls; instead we should just signal them. Why say "Time", instead of just holding our hands up? Think about it and be honest, isn't your mechanic exactly as I described earlier?

All I wrote was the arm signal was to indicate no tag was made. I never wrote one word about what was said or not said.

You implied, as I read it, that the verbal was enough. I suggested a visual was beneficial.

Then you went rambling about what actual words he may or may not have/should have used, although I never wrote anything about words in actual use.

Now you're talkin about "say and display" which says do both.

Which is it?

Who are you arguing with, yourself?

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by copeaus
Dakota,

My point is that A-Rod swatted as hundreds/thousands of other runners have swatted at home plate over the years,

I disagree. I've watched a lot of baseball over the years and I've never seen any runner attempting to score take a girlie swat at the catcher's glove in the flamboyant fashion that A-Rod did.

You have described this as`a "chuck." I'm not sure what that is, but it doesn't sound like an open-handed, top-to-down, swat.

Now, if you're saying a "chuck" is a punch that occurs that could be interpreted as *either* an attempt to jar the ball loose -or- simply the normal pumping motion common to running; I could see how an umpire might allow this. Runners can pump their arms pretty hard while running. That pumping motion is nearly identical to a punching motion. The forward pumping of one fist into the fielder's glove could very well be coincidental, even if it jars the ball loose. The umpire will probably give the runner the benefit of the doubt on such a play.

But that is certainly NOT the case with the play involving A-Rod. His swat was clearly NOT part of any natural running motion.

It was interference - no question about it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

Then why do they signal "safe" on a trapped ball?

You're right, Rich.

It is a personal umpire technique to give a safe signal for any unusual event that could possibly result in a runner or batter being out. The umpire quickly signals safe and now everybody knows that, whatever they just saw, one thing is for sure, nobody is out.

It's a good mechanic, in my opinion.

The safe signal has many meanings:
1.) Safe
2.) He didn't swing
3.) The ball was not interfered with (by a fan)
4.) The ball was not caught (probably trapped or short hopped)
5.) A tag was missed - usually a swipe tag

During very unusual plays, sometimes the safe signal is used to convey, "That's nothing! Keep playing."

I might be missing some other meanings. These just came to mind.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[GarthB]

Originally posted by SIBill
What's the rule on the Boston first baseman standing in the lane between Arod and first base? Isn't that illegal ? And since he was standing there prior to the "tag" , what is the rule here. If Arod had barreled into him and Aroyo what would have been the rule. If a person without the ball is allowed to stand between the runner and first base, everyone would have a designated stopper at first.

The title of this post is all too telling.

[greymule]

"What's the rule on the Boston first baseman standing in the lane between Arod and first base? Isn't that illegal ?"

I think this perception shows how Fed and/or ASA softball rules have influenced people's thinking. But not even an overzealous Fed or ASA ump would have called OBS on A-Rod's play.

You'll also find that MLB umps won't call verbal interference if a hometown fan yells at the visiting left fielder and causes him to drop a fly ball.

Remember that Arroyo had the ball in his possession. He was clearly the one making the play. F3 was several feet up the line from him. Arroyo could have bowled A-Rod over and the play would have been legal.

[Gee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greymule
[B]"What's the rule on the Boston first baseman standing in the lane between Arod and first base? Isn't that illegal ?"

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

The Red Sox first baseman was not standing in the first baseline between A-Rod and first base. He was between Arroya and first base.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
I sent a "What was the safe signal for" question to the WUA. I'll post the response if I get one.

Got the response - posting as promised:



Hi Rich,

Although we have not talked to Marsh about this, his signal of "safe" would
have indicated both that there was no tag (ball was on the ground) and that
Rodriguez was safe at first.

Thanks for your question,

Gary Cederstrom
WUA

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:10 PM
Subject: Ask the Umpire from worldumpires.com


> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
> ([email protected]) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 16:10:23
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> name: Rich Ives
>
> question: Question on the umpire mechanics on the A-Rod interference call
in game 6 of the ALCS.
>
> When the ball popped out, Randy Marsh signaled "safe." Was this to
indicate "no tag" or was it to signal "safe at 1B"?
>
> Thanks.

[WindyCityBlue]

You waited for that?

Read or listen to the Marsh interview.
He actually states why he signalled safe (he was screened) and he did it because the ball was on the ground, not because there was no tag. He graciously talked with ESPN radio and discussed the series, the problems and the new mechanics (huddling/conferencing). At no time did he say, imply or allude that there is a "No Tag" signal. As stated earlier, the mechanic is the standard "Safe" signal with a verbalized "No ball".

To say "Safe, no tag" is redundant. If he was tagged, he would be "Out".

I thought we had covered this a long time ago.

[Rich Ives]

At NO TIME EVER during this discussion did I bring verbalization (or not) of the call into the discussion. You keep going back to it. Why are you so hung up on it?

And just what part of [bold added]

" . . his signal of "safe" would have indicated both that there was no tag (ball was on the ground) and that Rodriguez was safe at first."

is so hard to understand?

[WindyCityBlue]

No, what is hard to understand why you feel compelled to justify your error. Cederstrom is relaying second hand information. Marsh already said what he did and it is clear!

••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••
Umpiring 101: What part of this is confusing?

To say "Safe, no tag" is redundant.

If he was tagged, he would be "Out".
••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••

There is no signal in professional mechanics for "Safe, no tag." It is either "Safe" or "Out"; the qualifiers can be "...no ball", "...no bag" but never, "...no tag". Of course he said that he thought Marsh called him safe because the ball was on the ground. All professional umpires are taught to qualify any call that is not a simple "Safe" or "Out". They do this by verbalizing the call. I know you didn't bring this into the conversation, I did. I tried to explain how the call couldn't have been made the way you implied. Again, Marsh stated this during his ESPN interview.

I'm sure that Rick did not mean that he was safe because there was no tag. Like the aformentioned Umpiring 101, if he ws tagged he would be out, since it happened before he gained first base. Rick was simplifying it for you.

Fitz laughed when I told him of your opinion a week ago.
He would dump any Minor Leaguer who gave this answer.

[Edited by WindyCityBlue on Oct 26th, 2004 at 02:58 PM]

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue


Read or listen to the Marsh interview.
He actually states why he signalled safe (he was screened) and he did it because the ball was on the ground, not because there was no tag.

Are you referring to this 9 minute interview?
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/ne...news&fext=.jsp

If you are, then the above statement is simply a misrepresentation of Marsh's comments. He said that he didn't call interference because he was screened. He made no reference to a safe call, to a tag or non-tag, or to a ball on the ground. In fact the only way we can infer from his comments that he did make a safe call--although we know he did from the video--is his reference to calling Jeter out as a "reversal."
In my opinion, this interview does not instruct us in any way concerning the proper mechanic for a ball dropped during a tag attempt of a runner before he reaches first base.

{quote police mode off}

On a different note, I'm puzzled by the obstruction aspect of the play. Assume that Marsh's initial view of the play was correct, and the ball was dropped during the tag attempt. Then it is certainly arguable that A-Rod was obstructed by the second fielder in the base line. What should Marsh do? If he judges that obstruction occurred, then presumably he would point and call "That's obstruction!" If he judges that it is not obstruction, what action should he take? Announce "That's nothing?" Or make some other signal?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
There is no signal in professional mechanics for "Safe, no tag." It is either "Safe" or "Out"; the qualifiers can be "...no ball", "...no bag" but never, "...no tag".

From the Jaksa/Roder Manual:

E. SAFE/OUT
Safe characterizes a runner who has advanced or returned to a base before he or the base (when appropriate) is tagged. An umpire voices and signals (or recognizes) that a runner is safe.

The "safe" signal (both arms extended out to the sides, parallel to the ground) with appropriate voice is sometimes given to indicate that:

(1) an attempt to tag a runner between bases has failed (e.g., rundown*- voice - "no tag!")


I have been taught exactly that mechanic by professional and Division 1 college (including veteran CWS) umpires.

[WindyCityBlue]

Dave Reed,
You are mistaken about the interview. Marsh conceded in several interviews that he was more upset with himself about not using the proper mechanic than making the proper call. He told an ESPN maggot immediately following Game 6, "I was screened by the first baseman. I need to work harder to get a better angle on plays like that." This is a perfect example of the control exerted over even the most veteran of officials by the league. He added, "We have been instructed to work as a crew to insure the proper call is made. It will take some getting used to. It's good for the game and for the umpires." This is almost verbatim what Crawford said earlier. It sounds like the league is doing some coaching, too.

Dave Hensley,
Thank you! You have provided the proof I required for describing the proper mechanic.
If you go back to my first posts regarding this issue, I insisted that Marsh should have said, “No Ball” after physically signalling that the runner was safe. I’ve TiVo’d it a dozen times and his mouth doesn’t move.

We have long known that it is acceptable to say, “We have a tag, Out” or Out, on the tag.”, especially on diving away or swipe tags. But the opposite is not true. The only time you would say that the runner was safe because there was no tag, would be in explaining the close call to a coach or player. Even Marsh said that he was more embarrassed by the poor execution of the call than the call itself. We can all learn from that.

I have used this mechanic since learning it from my instructors at Brinkman-Froemming and it has never failed me.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
We have long known that it is acceptable to say, “We have a tag, Out” or Out, on the tag.”, especially on diving away or swipe tags. But the opposite is not true. The only time you would say that the runner was safe because there was no tag, would be in explaining the close call to a coach or player.

You're not really saying that there's no proper mechanic for an additional signal beyond "safe" are you? What about the "pulled foot" mechanic, waving two arms together away from the base to explain the safe call?