Yes, any ump CAN call interference, but that doesn't mean they should, this is still MLB. In MLB, there were 6 umps on the field, and this play took place 10' from 1B. It was Marsh's call, and West let him have it.

Maybe West didn't jump in because he was not 100% certain either. I don't think he was going to offer an opinion until Francona came out, because when Francona did come out, West pointed him down to Marsh, and it was Marsh that then walked to meet West (the origianl meeting between Marsh and West took place on the home plate side of the mound - it moved further out as the other umpires came in to join). Remember, in the post game interview, Marsh said it was West AND Kellogg that both said they saw the interference. Who knows, maybe it was Kellogg that took the lead in the umpire's conference.

I still think there is a deference, particularly in MLB, to let the ump who's call it is take the original call. I also think West may not have been 100% certain (it would not be the first time he has been caught napping!). And if he was not 110% certain, I think he was right to keep his mouth shut until asked in private.

Sal posted:
"....then the million dollar question is why didn't West kill the play immediately after Marsh ruled "no tag"??? Obviously, once A-Rod slapped the ball out of the glove, West should have stepped in immediately and called interference... right?"
------------------------------------

I explained my thoughts on that in a post above. G.

[Edited by Gee on Oct 21st, 2004 at 01:23 PM]

Atl Blue,
I understand your points but just being devil's advocate, if you're the PU on this play, you're only responsibility is to trail the play at first. I did not see West's positoning but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he came up the line. If so, then he should have had a great look at the slap by A-Rod. As soon as the ball comes out and Marsh signals no tag, isn't it time for West to signal interference and kill the play immediately??? I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out what he was unsure about - the interference was fairly obvious - wasn't it???

I think you hit the jackpot!
 

AB,

I think you put 2 and 2 together. I questioned West not calling it, but I forgot that the discussion went further.

I would be willing to bet that West "did NOT" see the play (probably was either blocked or not paying attention as he should), and that it was Kellogg who made the call.

good point, I'd forgotten about that part of the interview.

So if PU didn't see anything wrong, there's no need to make a call.

Thanks
David

Hi Sal,

Got a question for you. I agree in all probability that Weat would have corrected the call. He wouldn't want to see this on ESPN etc. Lets bring this play down to our level. Given the same situation (no replay obviously) would you have corrected the call? Let's assume no one is complaining. I'll give you another example. Your PU no one on base. Grounder in the infield throw to first base and the first baseman is clearly off the bag and your partner bangs him out. No one complaines. Do you let it go?
Your the FU batter clearly swings (you want strike three its March and your hands are numb because you forgot your gloves) partner calls ball no one appeals.

My point is where do you draw the line. All three of the situations that I have described above could occur at crucial times during games. Not picking on you but something to consider.

My point is "getting it right" could be a sticky wicket.

Both Marsh and West were watching the play. Either could have made the call. West should have - right away. I'd be interested in HIS explanation of why he didn't.

Gordon,

"Given the same situation (no replay obviously) would you have corrected the call?"

ANSWER: Yes - As the PU, you have nothing else to do but trail the play at first and watch for out of the base line or interference

"Your PU no one on base. Grounder in the infield throw to first base and the first baseman is clearly off the bag and your partner bangs him out. No one complaines. Do you let it go?"

ANSWER: 99 out of 100 - I would let it go. Chances are, if no one else saw it, I don't want to "go looking for boogers". I might let partner know about it in between innings though just to make sure we are on the same page (seeing the same things)

"Your the FU batter clearly swings (you want strike three its March and your hands are numb because you forgot your gloves) partner calls ball no one appeals."

ANSWER: Assuming it's not a "third strike not legally caught situation", I'm not going to over rule him on check swings unless he comes to me for help.

Gordon - I understand what you're saying but I believe interference at first base is a little different situation than the other two examples. The main reason is that personally, I feel it is the PU's main responsibility on that play to look for interference because he has nothing else to do but to watch for that. The base umpire's main focus on that play is (safe/out, tag/no tag) at first and IF he can ALSO get the interference as well, that would be a bonus. Just my opinion though - other's may differ.

I agree with what you say. Personally If I saw Interference and my partner didn't I would bring it to his attention. My point is we have to be careful where and when we intervene.