Ok I know we have beaten the changing of calls to death but here's my problem with what happened during the AROD play.

PU's responsibility even in 6 man crew.

1. Call the Pitch
2. Fair / Foul up to the bag
3. Batter / Catcher's interference
4. Batter hitting ball out of box
5. 45 ft. lane responsibilities

So my question why did Joe West not call the interference if he saw it?

IMO it wouldn't be taking Randy Marsh's call away from him because let's assume the ball was around home plate and AROD violated the 45 ft. lane rule. That would have been West's call so what's the difference?

There are certain calls that belong to ALL umpires such as a balk call. Interference can also be called by ALL umpires so while I applaud the umpiring crew for getting the call right, IMO it would have looked better if Joe West who saw the interference call to begin with simply CALLED it.

IMO, had neither manager questioned those calls (I realize highly unlikely but humor me here), the original call WOULD have stood.

So in all this changing of calls why wait until Manager questions it if you KNOW what the call should be and in addition you are NOT "stepping on someone's toes" becasue the call could be made by all umpires.

I understand no one chiming in on the HR reversal because that was the LFU's call all the way and it was up to the LFU to seek help, but in the interference situation IMO Joe West should have called TIME! That's interference and called AROD out instead of waiting for Francona to come out.

What do you think!

Pete Booth

You bring up a good point. Instead of the men in blue looking like a bunch of congressmen not knowing what they are doing PU making the call would have looked more decisive. The crowd wouldn't have known the difference. The only problem you might have is 1b ump calling safe and pu killing the play. However with a good pregame that could be addressed.

Something to think about.

Although I wouldn't say the play falls strictly in the 45-foot lane category, I think the plate ump would not have been out of line to call this obvious interference right away. If I had been the base ump, I would have appreciated the immediate call. I would not have felt infringed upon.

This is not the same as ruling safe/out, and it's not a common mechanic like foot off the bag.

From what I've read in this baseball forum, it seems that MLB umps used to live or die by their calls... there were no conferences, managers went to the calling umpire and that umpire was tossed when he crossed the line.

At some point, this thinking changed. Perhaps when it was some Sandy fellow had increased responsibilities after some major issues with the UA.

Could going from pre-Sandy mechanics to greymule's suggestion be considered "too much of a change too fast?" We all know that making a call too fast in any sport can be deadly, and maybe changing the philosophy, in whole, too fast will cause a lot of mis-understanding, inconsistency, etc...

The umps/coaches/administrators need time (2yrs? 3yrs? 4yrs?) to adjust to seeing how everything should and will go with the thought process of getting the call right.

(Example: is Fed basketball, everyone knew that there'd be a change that the L would handle free throws, instead of the T. But there was a transition year where the L bounced the ball to the T who handed it to the shooter. Maybe next year the PU will call time and say this is what happened, but this year, they're going to conference, as a transition year.)

I'm just asking...

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Oct 21st, 2004 at 10:24 AM]

You have to divide up the responsibilities so you don't get two umpires making opposite calls. You can't have two people owning the call.

What if Marsh had a really good view and decided that it wasn't interference. You get to the meeting and do a "did so!" - "did not!."

What do you do then, arm wrestle for who makes the final call?

MLB may be different
 

Pete,

I see what you are saying and in our leagues I would expect the PU to make a call.

Or at least to immediately go to the BU and say I saw this "..." and let the BU make the final decision.

Now say its the same play and a run scores then you have a major fiasco because we all know managers get 200% more heated when the play involves a run scored or not.

It sounds like MLB may have a different set of guidelines for BU and PU. Maybe they let BU take it all the way to the bag for such calls and PU only decides when the ball hits BR in the last 45 feet.

Since we don't do MLB we probably will never know the answer.

Thanks
David

No...as stated MANY TIMES BEFORE, the protocol is consensus. No consensus = No change in the call.

That said, with only 2 guys and both disagree. Agree on one thing - that you will support each other and stay unified on the decision.

"Skip, we got together, discussed it and the call is going to stand. I had a really good look at it and that's why I called him out. Now, let's play ball."

Pete does bring up a good point that West, who probably had the best view of the play, could have killed it immediately. However, the reality is at the MLB level, plays like that develop so fast and with the players continuing on with the play and 55,000+ fans screaming, I guess if there is any doubt, let the play continue and fix it afterwards if necessary.

One thing to remember is the media, players, managers & fans don't think the umpires look like "congressmen" out there when they discuss a call. Actually, they think that the umpires are doing the right thing. It is us (amateur umpires) who thinks it looks shaky because we've been trained for so long to get it right ourselves.

Bottom line - yes it would have looked better if West banged the interference right away (which would have eliminated the huddle session) but for one reason or another he didn't. So they did the next best thing and got the call it right in the end. Did they look bad doing it??? Maybe to some of the "umpire purists" on this board but to everyone else in the world (especially MLB officials) - they looked fine.

I'll agree with you on this, Pete. In our association, the PU would have come up with that call immediataly. And if Joe West had done that, there may not have been such a fol-dur-al about the whole thing.

I think the reason that Joe West didn't call it was because he thought that Marsh saw it and would call it as West didn't have a clue that Marsh was blocked out by the first baseman. Once Marsh gave the safe sign West didn't want to overule him on the spot as there was no immenent need to kill the play at that time.

A-Rod hadn't reached first at the time of the interference therefore all runners are governed by TOP and there is no problem in the reconstruction. So Joe let it play out, and handled it accordingly, good move.

<i> Originally posted by Gee </i>

<b> So Joe let it play out, and handled it accordingly, good move. </b>

I disagree. The only reason the umpires got together was because Francona questioned the call. Had Francona not questioned the call (I guess we will not really know), it didn't appear West would have said anything.

This is an interference call not a banger or etc. where you would be stepping on someone's toes.

This past weekend my partner and I had a runner caught in a pickle between home and third. When F2 running up the line made a tag attempt, R3 clearly went out of the base-line to avoid the tag. Now both me and my partner were close to the play, but I clearly saw it so I called it.

I did not wait for the play to end, have the coach come out in a Hissy, check with my partner and then make the call.

When situations arise where either umpire can and should make the call, then IMO he is not stepping on someone's toes. If Joe had killed the play immediately as soon as he saw the interference, I don't think Randy Marsh would have had a problem.

To me the way I look at it, is similar to the 45 ft. violation.

Pete Booth

I think there are some plays that we know for certain our partner would want us to intercede on.

Not long ago, my BU called a runner out on a tag at 3B. From his angle, and with F5's body blocking his vision, I'm sure he saw a clean out. But though the fielder came up with the ball in the glove, the ball had come out of the glove after the tag, and F5 had very quickly scooped it back. Now I've worked with this partner enough that we trust each other, so I immediately said, "Bill, you couldn't see it from your angle. The ball came out." He simply said and signaled, "Safe," and nobody made a peep.

It seems to me that immediate correction of calls we are <i>absolutely sure</i> on can save a lot of grief.

If as PU I was <i>certain</i> I saw Bellhorn's ball hit the fan in the stomach, I'd have gone out and conferred with the line ump right away. I wouldn't have overruled him immediately though. But remember hearing the ump telling Francona, "No it didn't," two nights ago? Having another ump inform me of what I missed so that we could correct things immediately would save me embarrassment.

Of course, pure safe and out judgment, we hold our tongue.

Pete - you are on a roll brother. Another good point - if Francona didn't come out to argue the play, would the umpires have corrected their original no call?

Boy, that would have been ugly if the play stood and West didn't step in to change it. Actually, the media would have had a field day with that because the replay clearing showed A-ROD's interference.

Personally, I think Joe West would have been the one to blame if the call did not get changed because Marsh apparently was screened out on the play. Actually, the whole crew would have incurred the "rath" of MLB because they would have said something like..."With 6 umpires out there, it is impossible for no one to have seen that and why didn't anybody step in and make it right"

It all worked out in the end but let this be an example of why it's crucial that we all take care of own responsibilites at the time of the play... because you may not get a second chance to fix it.

I didn't see the play, live, I think I was getting an adult beverage at the time. When I saw the first replay it was a no brainer. I really cannot fathom your point that if Francoma didn't come out West would have let it go.

Millions of people saw the violation clearly, at least on replay, and they are still seeing it. Can you possibly imagine the ramifications for Joe West, etal, even if Francoma didn't come out, if the situation wasn't corrected? How could Joe West possibly say he didn't see it, the procedure is listed in his job description? How could he explain it to the powers that be.

I'm not sure of the MLU policy on correcting a call, whether the manager has to ask the calling umpire to get help or not In my area if I see a rule violation improperly handled by a partner I call for a conference whether I'm on the bases or the plate and let the calling umpire make the change if applicable.

I agree, I think West would have stepped in and corrected the call. However, if we speculate that he would have overruled Marsh regardless if Francona came out or not, 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 want to make it clear that I am not criticizing West in any way. I am just bringing this up as a potential play that could have happened to any of us. Maybe we can learn something from this.

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.