Interesting observation

[David Emerling]

I was watching a district game between two local powerhouses this evening and a very interesting thing occurred.

With 1 out, R1 attempts to steal. The PU calls batter interference on the play (and it was) as the catcher's throw barely failed to retire the stealing runner.

The PU ruled the batter out and directed R1 to return to 1st.

A discussion then broke out which was initiated by the defensive manager.

I was trying mightily to listen in on their conversation. He wanted R1 to *also* be called out - claiming that the catcher *could* have thrown him out had there not been batter interference. Both the umpires were involved in the conversation which was actually at a very civil level. No screaming, just some strong opinions being bantered about.

This game came to a complete stall. The fans started to get restless. 20 minutes go by as the umpires actually went in search of a rule book. There they were ... all three of them ... the defensive manager and both umpires leafing through the rule book.

Ultimately, the umpires call R1 out.

The offensive manager hits the ceiling!

The umpires show him something in the rulebook and tones it down a bit - but he's still not happy.

I don't think I've ever seen a rule book so openly displayed and utilized in a baseball game.

It was amazing to observe.

Clearly, the umpires had applied the OBR application of the rule without considering the quirkiness of the FED version of the rule ... something, apparently, the defensive coach was keenly aware of ... and must have made a compelling case.

FED-wise, in my opinion, they ultimately got it right. But it wasn't very impressive.

It also made me realize that the FED rule is kind of stupid. There is no way the defense deserved to get TWO outs on that play.

The "punishment" didn't seem to fit the "crime."

You read the rule, you shrug your shoulders, and it seems to have a certain logic ... UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY APPLY IT A *REAL* BASEBALL GAME. Then it seems "wrong."

Apparently, this coach got the umpires to admit that the runner would probably have been thrown out had the interference not occurred. Once they conceded that issue, they really *had* to apply the rule.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN





[Edited by David Emerling on May 12th, 2005 at 02:43 AM]