Interference on A-Rod, Game 6 ALCS

[WindyCityBlue]

No, I believe that I said "No Bag" in my post yesterday, the day before...the week before...the month before...

It has been quoted repeatedly by Emerling, Mills, Ives, et al. I have long said that the proper mechanic for qualified calls is "Say and Display".

I'm sure that if you go back and read even the previous few pages that are by me or quote me, you will find that you erred.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by 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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Hensley's quote from J/R

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!")

Failed = no tag. Get it?

It is proof of my position (long disparaged by you) that a safe signal can indicate "no tag" and is the direct opposite of what you posted above ("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.")


BTW - my mail never arrived.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Dave Reed
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? [/B]

I think an argument COULD be made that Rodriguez was obstructed by Mientkiwicz (F3). I've looked at the video several times and Mientkiwicz actually cuts in front of Rodriguez, in front of the bag, and crosses through the running lane.

However, the interference happens well before the positioning of Mientkiwicz becomes an issue. There is no sense that Rodriguez is slowing down, swerving, or in any way being hindered by Mientkiwicz at the time that he swats at the ball in Arroyo's glove.

That being said, since Randy Marsh did not see the interference - then why didn't he call the obstruction?

It's a good point. But, as awkward as it was to see Mientkiwicz cut in front of Rodriguez, it doesn't seem there was any real hindrance. The best argument is that Rodriguez missed the bag as a direct result of having been obstructed, causing him to have to back track, tag the bag, before advancing to 2nd.

It would have been interesting had the ball been recovered more quickly and Rodriguez thrown out at 2nd. THEN the obstruction question would have loomed larger since Rodriguez lost valuable time having to go back and touch the 1st base bag. Which would beg the question: Why did he miss the bag in the first place?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Rich]

Originally posted by David Emerling

I think an argument COULD be made that Rodriguez was obstructed by Mientkiwicz (F3). I've looked at the video several times and Mientkiwicz actually cuts in front of Rodriguez, in front of the bag, and crosses through the running lane.

However, the interference happens well before the positioning of Mientkiwicz becomes an issue. There is no sense that Rodriguez is slowing down, swerving, or in any way being hindered by Mientkiwicz at the time that he swats at the ball in Arroyo's glove.

That being said, since Randy Marsh did not see the interference - then why didn't he call the obstruction?

It's a good point. But, as awkward as it was to see Mientkiwicz cut in front of Rodriguez, it doesn't seem there was any real hindrance. The best argument is that Rodriguez missed the bag as a direct result of having been obstructed, causing him to have to back track, tag the bag, before advancing to 2nd.

It would have been interesting had the ball been recovered more quickly and Rodriguez thrown out at 2nd. THEN the obstruction question would have loomed larger since Rodriguez lost valuable time having to go back and touch the 1st base bag. Which would beg the question: Why did he miss the bag in the first place?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B]

There was no obstruction. You said it yourself -- there was no real hindrance. And there CERTAINLY wasn't any before the interference occurred, which makes anything that happened afterwards quite moot.

[Kaliix]

You could make the argument that A-Rod was obstructed, but it would be a poor one. For one, A-Rod got tagged and then interfered with Arroyo before he ever got to Mientkiewicz. Second, A-Rod never had the chance to have Mientkiewicz obstruct him because when he swatted the ball out of Arroyo's hand, that contact caused him to stumble off a bit to his right and miss first base. By that time Mientkiewicz was out of his way and never came close to obstruction. Mientkiewicz really ended up being a non-factor in the play.

[WindyCityBlue]

From the infallible fingertips of Rich Ives -

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Hensley's quote from J/R

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!")

Failed = no tag. Get it?

It is proof of my position (long disparaged by you) that a safe signal can indicate "no tag" and is the direct opposite of what you posted above ("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.")

BTW - my mail never arrived.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The signal in and of itself means "SAFE" - It is the qualifier that is and has been taught for over a dozen years, that indicates that the call isn't a simple "The ball beat the runner to the bag." Without the qualifier, you are a fan in the stands. (I suggest you read the e.g. again.)

You can champion this cause all you like. Marsh stated what he did and how he was wrong. He even indicated how he would correct it - better angle and the qualifier, "No Ball." But, I guess a Major League umpire and J/R know less than you. I hope you've been hired to train them next year.

BTW - You are either lying about the mailman or should get a new P.O. Box. How convenient? Rather than admitting you were a fool, you'll claim that you didn't receive it. You've been awfully quiet lately, I figured that you learned your lesson, but I'm not surprised you'd pull this. here comes another "Did not" "Did too" funfest.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue

No, I believe that I said "No Bag" in my post yesterday, the day before...the week before...the month before...

It has been quoted repeatedly by Emerling, Mills, Ives, et al. I have long said that the proper mechanic for qualified calls is "Say and Display".

I'm sure that if you go back and read even the previous few pages that are by me or quote me, you will find that you erred.

If you're right about what you said previously, then my going back to it will disclose that you contradicted yourself, not that I erred.

Proposition 1: "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" (my emphasis).

Proposition 2: "I have long said that the proper mechanic for qualified calls is 'Say and Display'."

In the context of my question about the "pulled foot" mechanic, asserting both propositions constitutes a contradiction. Proposition 1 entails that we should NOT signal a pulled foot, and Proposition 2 entails that we SHOULD signal it. Which is it, Windy?

It's perfectly acceptable for you to backpedal from your overly strong Proposition 1; just don't accuse me of erring while you're doing it.

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Marsh stated what he did and how he was wrong. He even indicated how he would correct it - better angle and the qualifier, "No Ball."
[/B]

WCB-- Would you mind providing a link to this article or audio clip? The URL I posted earlier in this thread points to what must be a different interview. In the URL I provided, the only mechanic he addressed revolved around the umpire conference preceeding the reversal.

Thanks,
Dave Reed

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser in reply to David Emmerling
And there CERTAINLY wasn't any [obstruction] before the interference occurred, which makes anything that happened afterwards quite moot. [/B]

Rich, at the time that the possible obstruction occurred, Marsh didn't know that there had been interference. So from his point of view, the ball is (a)live, and it is his responsibility to rule on further plays or events. According to J/R, when possible obstruction [or interference] occurs, and the umpire judges that none actually occurred, he is to signal safe (sorry, WCB), and voice "that's nothing." I can easily understand the position that no meaningful obstruction occurred, but I do think that Mientkiewicz' action constitutes possible obstruction.

Assume for a moment that the umpire judges that obstruction did not occur, but the situation requires comment. Should he signal safe, and verbalize "no ball" followed by "that's nothing?"

Dave Reed

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Dave Reed

Rich, at the time that the possible obstruction occurred, Marsh didn't know that there had been interference. So from his point of view, the ball is (a)live, and it is his responsibility to rule on further plays or events. According to J/R, when possible obstruction [or interference] occurs, and the umpire judges that none actually occurred, he is to signal safe (sorry, WCB), and voice "that's nothing." I can easily understand the position that no meaningful obstruction occurred, but I do think that Mientkiewicz' action constitutes possible obstruction.

Assume for a moment that the umpire judges that obstruction did not occur, but the situation requires comment. Should he signal safe, and verbalize "no ball" followed by "that's nothing?"

Dave Reed [/B]

That was one of my points.

You can't make the argument that Marsh didn't call obstruction BECAUSE the interference happened first. Remember, Marsh claimed to have never seen the interference. Therefore, if he thought there was obstruction, he should have called it. But he didn't.

Now, I'm not saying there *was* obstruction ... I'm simply saying that Marsh, apparently, didn't think there was any or he would have called it because, in his mind, the ball was still live.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 28th, 2004 at 02:28 AM]

[WindyCityBlue]

Dave Reed,
You'll have to check with ESPN.
It was on one of their shows.
I listen to the radio, not the computer.

[LMan]

how can one debate "possible" obstruction? Its either called or it isn't. Here, according to Mr. Marsh, it wasn't.

Reminds me of the movie line where a woman runs into a meeting in a rush and another woman says, "You were almost late!" and the first woman says, "around here we have a term for 'almost late' - its called, 'on time'"

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Why is my post gone? I saw it here. I submitted it, and saw that it was posted, and now see that it is gone.

It was not nearly as inflamatory as many of the others.

Again, why is my post gone .... oooh anonymous deleter?

[Kaliix]

Yeah, I'd like to know too? I read it and it certainly did not seem to warrant deletion. Hummmmm?!?

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Why is my post gone? I saw it here. I submitted it, and saw that it was posted, and now see that it is gone.

It was not nearly as inflamatory as many of the others.

Again, why is my post gone .... oooh anonymous deleter?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Why is my post gone? I saw it here. I submitted it, and saw that it was posted, and now see that it is gone.

It was not nearly as inflamatory as many of the others.

Again, why is my post gone .... oooh anonymous deleter?

Becaue I thought it was inflamatory. Not all of it, to be sure, but substantial parts of it (the beginning and the end, iirc). Resubmit it w/out the personal attacks.