I have been calling in youth Leagues which go by MLB rules for 18 years, and I do not understand the call of Interference on A-Rod running to first base and swatting at Arroyo as Interference as defined by MLB 7.09.

7.09 only addresses interfering with interrupting or hindering a fielder in the act of FIELDING a ball. Arroyo was not in the act of fielding the ball.

Some in a chat room last night tried to point out being out for "malicious contact", which I'm not finding any reference to in 7.09, 7.08. Where am I not seeing these exact words? Please let me know where I'm overlooking.

Givent that someone helps me find the 'malicious contact' clause in MLB rules, then why is every runner in MLB who annihilates a catcher at home plate not called out for malicious contact?
The collisions that occur at home plate are much more violent (Pete Rose's All-Star game bowl-over in the 70's, Mike Piazza has received a concussion or two from home plate collisions, etc) than A-Rod's sissy swat at Arroyo in Game 6.

Further, if there is a malicious contact clause, there is no distinction in MLB rule book that breaking up a play is allowable at home plate but is not allowable at any other base. If MLB players are allowed to stay on the base path and attempt to break up the catcher at home plate, where does it state they cannot do so at any other base?

The only other situation here is when a player slides wide at 2nd base, and goes for the man turning the play at 2nd base instead of sliding directly into 2nd for the purpose of breaking up the double play. There was obviously no attempt to break up a double play on the A-Rod/Arroyo play.

A runner can be called out for interference for hindering a fielder attempting to make a play on a BATTED ball (7.09), but Arroyo was not in the act of fielding the ball. It was already in his glove.

Just as a runner coming to home plate has the right to the base path, A-Rod was within the base path running to first base. He could not and did not very right to avoid a tag, as he could have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of the baseline in order to avoid a tag (7.08(a)).

Looking for chapter and verse from MLB that led to A-Rod being viewed as interfering, and why is this distinguishable from breaking up a play at home plate?

He had a right to the baseline. It was the swiping with his hand that was illegal. If you've really been calling for 18 years, you know this already. Intentional interference - textbook.

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.


[Edited by mcrowder on Oct 20th, 2004 at 09:10 AM]

2.00 INTERFERENCE: "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"

Item 4.1, page 32 of the 2004 PBUC: "While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball...."

If A-Rod were to intentionally slap at the catcher's mitt on a play at the plate he should be called out for interference there also.

so why aren't MLB players coming into home plate, in the base path, called out for "intentional interference" all the time?

There is no distinction in MLB rule book that breaking up the play at home is allowed but disallowed at all other bases.

If A-Rod had simply continued running, and collided with the pitcher, it would have been legal (and analogous to the plays you keep mentioning at home). His play last night was more like a runner running home, trying to score, stopping, and then swinging his hand at the glove of the catcher to knock the ball out. That is illegal.

And (as I said above) - if you've been doing this for 18 years, you already know that.

there are numerous instances when MLB runners are coming into home plate where the "chuck" of their arms go straight out toward the glove of the catcher (as opposed to burying their shoulder into the shoulder/body of the catcher).

In the instances where it is a chuck at the catcher's glove I have never seen an MLB umpire call the runner out for Intentional Interference at the plate and send all other runners back.

This is what the crew used to make the decision. It is posted on FOX SPORTS

*********
Umpires called Yankees star Alex Rodriguez out for interference after he swatted Boston pitcher Bronson Arroyo's glove while running out a grounder in Game 6 of the AL championship series. From the Official Baseball Rules:

Rule 2.00.

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.


---
From the MLB Umpire Manual, a casebook that guides their decisions:

Section 6.1 (Offensive Interference):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.
************

Now if A-Rod just let himself be tagged Jeter would have been in scoring position. Furtheremore, Boston's F3 was in the running lane getting into the play without the ball. Again if the illustrious A-Rod would have allowed himself to be tagged, Torre may have been able to get an obstruction call - and it would have been Type "A"!

http://msn.foxsports.com/pgStory?con...&pageNumber=33

From the MLB Umpire Manual, a casebook that guides their decisions:

Section 6.1 (Offensive Interference):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.


This is what I was looking for.

Hmmmm.... that was provided in the second answer to your original posting. I guess it took two.

[Edited by Dakota on Oct 20th, 2004 at 10:40 AM]

Dakota,

my point is that it seems to be a double standard. (Yes, duh, I saw the second response.)

I belabor the point as there seems to be a double standard. MLB runners going into home plate who chuck at the catcher's mitt are not ruled out for Interference, which by rule would cause other runners to return to their original base(s).

My point is that A-Rod swatted as hundreds/thousands of other runners have swatted at home plate over the years, (1) I have yet to see any MLB umpire when this happens at the dish send other runner(s) back to their original base(s), and (2) there is nothing in the rule book allowing distinguishing "legal" chucking at the catcher's mitt at home plate from any other base.

It's not a double standard. And apparently, it's only you on the other side of this argument.

If a runner coming home swings or punches directly at the glove of the catcher, he's out. If he is diving for the plate and simply collides with the catcher, it's not interference. It's a pretty simple line to draw, and it makes sense. I don't see the issue here unless it's just that you're a Yankee Fan. :)

But, the real reason for my reply here ...

MLB umpire mechanics.... A-Rod ran wide of the base as the ball was dribbling off into right field. Was it correct for the first base umpire to signal SAFE? He obviously did not see the tag attempt (or he would have seen the interference, too). But, he obviously did see the missed base.

There is a difference in the placement of the other runners. In the case of a BR, the other runners are placed on their bases at the TOP. In the case of an R3 (for example), the other runners are placed at the last base they had achieved at the time of the interference.

Dude,
Chill out man... There is no need for all the name calling and vulgarity.

I have been a baseball fan for years and I really can't ever remember seeing a player swat at the catchers mitt/ball like A-Rod did last night. I use swat because I am not sure what you mean by chuck. The way chuck is used were I live usually is synonomous with throw.

I think you may be confusing running into the straight into the catcher or catcher/glove combination with or without the arms up with a player swiping/swatting or moving their arms up or down in some fashion with the intent of dislodging the ball.

If the catcher and player collide at home and the ball becomes dislodged, such is life. Only when some other additional action is present, such as a swat or swipe with some type of chopping motion, would there be some kind of intent and a ruling of interference.

[Edited by bob jenkins on Oct 20th, 2004 at 12:19 PM]

Defensive Interferance?
 

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.

Re: Defensive Interferance?
 

One of a couple of reasons why it was a stupid move by A-Rod. Mientkiewicz may have been guilty of obstruction, but the interference took precedence.

Once the runner has passed the base, he is considered to have touched it, therefore the call would be safe.

He wasn't signaling safe at the base, He was signaling "no tag."

What???
 

No he wasn't.

He signalled "Safe"; the mechanic for anything else is to "Say and Display". Watch the replay - he did not say "No tag".

I'm not sure what mechanic they teach in your area, but we don't have a "No Tag" signal. We verbalize "No Bag", "No Ball/No Control" and "No Tag", while signalling the call. that way there is no confusion.

This morning Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby were discussing the play on WABC. Unsurprisingly, Kuby tried to argue that the call was wrong because the rule prohibited the runner from swiping at the <i>ball,</i> whereas A-Rod swiped at Arroyo's <i>arm.</i> Kuby apparently thinks the baseball rule book should have to hold up legally before some New York City judge. Of course, a reading of the rule in its entirely does cover the play.

Then they got Warner Wolfe into the act. Warner explained that A-Rod could barrel over Arroyo as long as A-Rod stayed in the 45-foot running lane. Fielders, you see, have to stay out of that lane. Wolfe also explained that pitchers usually use a swipe tag in such a situation, because if they are in the running lane, as Arroyo was, they can be called for "interference" [we know it's OBS]. The fact that Arroyo had the ball in his possession apparently does not enter into consideration.

In fact, if there was ever an obvious call to be made, this was it. As for the people who think similar plays are not called at home plate, barreling into the catcher can be construed as an attempt to reach the plate. Reaching, swiping, grabbing, karate chopping, gouging--these are not.

Re: What???
 

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

His safe signal was to demonstrate that on the play (the tag), the runner was not out. His safe signal does not necessarily imply that he did or did not touch the bag.

Also, had this been simply a play at first, where ARod missed the bag, the signal (assuming he beat the ball) would still be safe.

Nope...Mechanis/Signals 101

Arms extended from the shoulders = Safe, No Catch, No Swing

If an official has a play that requires explanation, verbalization or a follow up signal is required.
(i.e. "Safe, no ball" : signal is arms extended, followed by juggling motion)

Marsh did not signal safe and say "No tag". If he did, he would have been belittled even more. By saying "No tag", he indicates that he did not even see the contact that dislodged the ball. Certainly there was an attempt to tag and the B/R contacted the fielder to dislodge the ball. Since he saw teh ball on the ground, the "No Tag" call indicates that the ball came loose on its own and the error was on the pitcher.

By saying "Safe, no ball", he may have been able to save himself a little grief here. He did not say either. He simply signalled "Safe", albeit with emphasis, and stepped back. At that minute, his demeanor changed and he acknowledge that he needed help. They got the call right and game 7 has his shaken confidence (remember he butchered the Ortiz steal call on Monday) behind the dish!

Rich,
On fly balls that drop to the ground, we give the "safe" signal and say "Ball Down" or "No Catch" to alert our partner(s) who should be watching for touched bases, obstruction, interference, etc. Not only is it a courtesy, but indicates on trapped balls that we've seen the entire play. But then again, that is what we do here. It may be different for you.

I've also seen the MLB guys signal safe when an F4 takes a swipe and misses at R1 as he heads to 2B.

I really think it is a better approach at a big stadium where crowd noise might drown out a verbalization yet the players need to know the call.

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

I know what you are talking about, but in all the instances I have seen it happen in, the runner is coming home, he lowers his shoulders and arms to run into the catcher, but the catcher slides to the side, to avoid the collision and then sticks his glove out to make the tag. This makes it look as if the runner is swiping at the ball and glove when it is simple the catcher trying to avoid the collision. And I've never seen a player at the plate swipe at the glove, if the catcher sticks it out there they just run right through it, that is not the same as taking your hands and arms and swinging at the glove.

[Edited by gsf23 on Oct 20th, 2004 at 04:53 PM]

Ball is dead. Runners return to base TOP.

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?

Bush - if ANY runner has not reached the next base, everyone goes to where they were at the TOP.

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??!!

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?

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

Re: Re: What???
 

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, <i>nobody</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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

Re: Defensive Interferance?
 

The title of this post is all too telling.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
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.

Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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.

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 <b>indicated both</b> that there was <b>no tag</b> (ball was on the ground) and that Rodriguez was safe at first."

is so hard to understand?

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]

Re: Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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?

From the Jaksa/Roder Manual:

<font color=blue>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!")
</font>

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

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.

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?

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Hensley's quote from J/R

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

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

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 <i>("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. <b>But the opposite is not true</b></i>.")


BTW - my mail never arrived.

Re: Re: Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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 <b>front</b> of Rodriguez, in <b>front</b> of the bag, and <b>crosses</b> through the running lane.

However, the interference happens <i>well before</i> 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

Re: Re: Re: Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safe, No Tag...What???
 

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]

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

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'" :)

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?

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

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.

Thank you, Bob. I imagine I speak for many of us on this site in saying that these tiresome and long-winded personal attacks distract from the useful content that is supposed to be the purpose of this site.

And I think your strategy of deleting entire posts rather than merely the offending portions is a good one. Keep up the good work.

You've got to be kidding me, Bob
 

Resubmit? Resubmit what? Do you think I keep copies of my submissions?

You must have been having a bad day if you thought my post was worse than the continual bickering banter that lately seems to fill the threads of this forum.

There was no name calling on my part. No childish arguments on my part. Just pointing out that there is a lot of those activities going on in WHAT MUST BE YOUR FORUM, BOB. Yours and that other guy who I mentioned acted as though he was on a personal task of setting the world straight. Thank goodness you squelched me before somebody else noticed these activities.:D

These threads with endless boobing back and forth between half a dozen whiners ... aaah what's the use? Moderate away, Bob.

Well somebody thinks you're doing a good job of maintenance... of course they didn't get to read my "inflamatory" post. They probably still think interference for A-Rod would have been a good call, too. Nice.

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to digest the rich intellect of your postings here. Having had more than my share of posts deleted, I understand the power of the "submit" button. Once it is out there...

As has been stated here many a time, officials should be used to a little abuse. We are chided for our very opinion - sometimes, just for showing up at the field! A little banter is good for thickening up the skin. The problem is that some of the members here take the issues personally and attack without reading the entire message. We can all disagree about rulings, interps, mechanics, etc. Some of us are more eloquent than others and enjoy the dialogue. This Board can help inmore ways that its' original design. Rookies learn that there are more than one way to make a call or handle a situation. Veterans learn new mechanics and alternative ways to officiate. What works on your field in your neighborhood may not be effective in my yard. But I urge you to stop, read, absorb and decide for yourself.

Officiating involves egos and power struggles. In a perfect world, we would all be equal and know as much as anyone else. That is not the case and some of us can offer different persepctives and inject a new way of thinking. I've said it before, an official's job is to convince others that he is right. Why is it so hard to fathom that some of believe that we are "more correct" than others?

In "The Untouchables" movie, Sean Connery made a comment about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Some of our members argue in that same way. Convincing a hothead coach that his kid just balked the winning run in is a lot tougher, but we learn how and what to say. Maybe some of our members are learning right now.

Totally disagree
 

WCB ,
I have noticed that on occasion you make a good point or two....the problem is that you shovel so much crap out there that those good points are buried ! I for one have stopped reading anything with your name attached to it because of this and that is a shame because I do feel like you have some good things to say....I just don't have the time to sift thru all the garbage to get to it .
So because someone is an official that person should have tough skin in their personal life and not be offended when someone insults them outside of the playing field/arena ......that is one of the silliest things I have ever heard ?

I am on this board to learn from others more experienced then I(primarily on the basketball site because I officiate but I come to the baseball site because I played and I currently coach) and your antics on this board just make it less enjoyable .
This is just one man's opinion....