Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[dudeinblue]

Originally posted by Tim C
"Jerry" has been making a lot of things up lately.

Guess he has joined my "not expert" group from my column.

T

WOBW

[cowbyfan1]

Thanks Carl, seemed real obvious to me and those really in the know. This is how so many know it all prove they do not. They read half the rule and get a full interpetation out of it.

[Jerry]

Carl and T:

I'm assuming you meant your comments to be sarcastic; so first I'll say, "Shame on you". Secondly, as much as I admire Carl and Tim for their knowledge and experience . . . I will vehemently defend my earlier position. Contrary to Cowboy Fan's allegation, I did read the entire Rule (6.06(c)including the Exception: and the italicized explanation. I was discussing why a professional umpire would elect to invoke one rule over another. The original question, if you recall, is "is there a difference between FED and OBR".


To continue the discussion with Carl . . . all the "Exception" says is that SOMEONE is going to be called out on the interference. If the runner advancing to home is called out (by 7.09(d)), then the batter is not that someone.

I can certainly agree with Carl that the coach could POSSIBLY have a valid argument that 7.09(d) was not invoked; but if U1 was using 6.06(c) as justification for his ruling, contradictory to 7.09 or not, wouldn't he be on pretty solid footing? I can all concede that 7.09(d) should have been the preferred call; but not the exclusive one.

In fact, 6.06(c) has a much more detailed explanation on how to handle batter interference. "If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call 'interference.' The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference . . . and all runners must return to the last base that was . . . legally touched at the time of the interference."

The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?

If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes?

Jerry

[Dave Hensley]

The two rules do not conflict with each other. 6.06(c) includes a reference to the exception that when there are less than two outs and the runner is advancing to home when the batter is interfered with, then it is the runner who is called out, not the batter. Jim Evans explains that the intent of this rule is to impose the more severe penalty on the offense.

The rules do not conflict; they instead are redundant, but necessary as 6.06(c) explains the rule as it impacts the batter because it's in the section of the rulebook on the batter, and 7.08(g) explains the rule as it impacts the runner because it's in the section of the rulebook on the runner.

7.09(d) is completely redundant with 7.08(g).

Nothing, however, in these three separate rules is intended to give umpires an "option" between enforcement penalties. There is no distinction between "making a play" and "attempting to make a play" or whatever it was Jerry said previously.

In the MLB play under discussion, the umpires simply screwed up. It happens, even at their level. This is a horse; not a zebra.

[Tim C]

DudeinBlue THANKS for the compliment.

I agree with Dave Hensley.

Jerry my comments were obvious that some of us feel you kicked the interp.

Nothing sarcastic . . . just question your view. So let me get this straight . . . we can't question you, at all?

Jerry wrote: "Shame on you!"

That is almost as funny as watching a plate umpire who has been chipped at by bench personel for far too long who says:

"Cut It Out!"

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 4th, 2005 at 09:19 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jerry
Carl and T:

I'm assuming you meant your comments to be sarcastic; so first I'll say, "Shame on you". Secondly, as much as I admire Carl and Tim for their knowledge and experience . . . I will vehemently defend my earlier position. Contrary to Cowboy Fan's allegation, I did read the entire Rule (6.06(c)including the Exception: and the italicized explanation. I was discussing why a professional umpire would elect to invoke one rule over another. The original question, if you recall, is "is there a difference between FED and OBR".

The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?

If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes?

Jerry

Yes.

But: It was my fault for using "see" instead of "encounter." I wanted you to understand that amateur players don't always play in the best fashion. Consequently, amateur umpires encounter more strange plays more often than the professional. Major league umpires often huddle to get a strange play right. By the time they've decided what to do, the amateur game is in the next inning.

This is from MLB.com. It might change your mind:

Three batters after Rodriguez was hit, Carpenter attempted to sacrifice Mark Grudzielanek home from third base. On a pitch down and in, Carpenter tried to get out of the way, and he and Lo Duca got tangled up as Lo Duca tried to tag Grudzielanek. Initially, home-plate umpire Doug Eddings called Grudzielanek safe, but he then quickly called Carpenter out and sent Grudzielanek back to third on a batter interference call.

The Cards were irritated that their run was taken away, while the Marlins took issue with the interpretation of the rule. According to rule 7.08(g), it is the runner, not the batter, who should be called out on such a play.

Your comment about "sarcasm" is strange. I thought my post was quite calm and orderly.

The umpire calls "Strike!" and the batter says: "Hell, that was outside." The umpire says: "You think that was outside?"

Well, maybe you should let sleeping giants lie.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Jerry



The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?

If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes?

FYI Jerry

The PU apoligized and admitted he made a mistake and the runner should be called out.

As far as your comments about MLB umpires - it happens.

Even Sandy Kofax gave up a home-run during his illustrious career.

Also, Papa C is "right on" in his observation about ML umpires not encountering these strange type plays.

No matter if you encountered it before or not if you do not see it on a regular bases you have to stop and think.

Look at it this way. Suppose you use a computer software product say EXCEL on a regular bases and then you do not use it again for quite some time, inevitably you will forget how to use some of it's features until you start ENCOUNTERING it again.

Umpiring is no different. It was a strange play and the umpire simply made a mistake on who was out.

Look at last's years play with AEROD, when's the last time you saw something like that. The umpires got the call right but not after they huddled and had a full discussion.

Side note: When you receive responses from several known authorities on the subject matter is a good bet that they "might have something". It's not being arrogant.

Pete Booth

[Sal Giaco]

Personally, I thought it was a great call by HP Umpire Doug Eddings. He had to call the bunt attempt, tag/no tag and then the interference at real time speed with Major League players involved. He got 99% (the hardest parts) of the play right on something that rarely happens in anyone's umpire career. Yeah, he enforced the penalty incorrectly but it's difficult to process all of that information including base awards/penalties in the couple of seconds it took for that whole clusterf*#k play to happen.

Actually, the crew got together briefly after the play happened so I think the crew chief and perhaps his other two partners should get some of the blame for not "chimming" in a getting the penalty enforced correctly. Expecting one guy, even at the Major League level, to straighten out this mess is a lot to ask for. I think Eddings did a great job.

[Jerry]

Thank-you, Sal and Pete:
I was on the side of the MLB umpires . . . and trying to discuss why they all agreed on what they did. I'm gratified to see that not only did I get the call incorrect; so did they. I'm in pretty good company, I think.

To Tim and Carl (in particular):
I am very respectfull of each of your knowledge, experience and connections. I would never dream of trying arguing with either one of you regarding rules and interpretations. I was simply trying to tell the original poster that the rules are the same under all codes, and trying to justify why Doug made the call he did. Nothing more; nothing less.

To Carl:
You were indeed calm on your replies. The "sarcastic" note was meant for Tim and my being put on the "non-expert" part of his column. I assure you, if there's anyone that tries to get to the bottom of a rule interpretation, it's me. I've won a ton of coffee bets by simply producing some of your columns from Referee over the years; and some of your wisdom of today.

Jerry

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jerry
Thank-you, Sal and Pete:
I was on the side of the MLB umpires . . . and trying to discuss why they all agreed on what they did. I'm gratified to see that not only did I get the call incorrect; so did they. I'm in pretty good company, I think.

To Tim and Carl (in particular):
I am very respectfull of each of your knowledge, experience and connections. I would never dream of trying arguing with either one of you regarding rules and interpretations. I was simply trying to tell the original poster that the rules are the same under all codes, and trying to justify why Doug made the call he did. Nothing more; nothing less.

To Carl:
You were indeed calm on your replies. The "sarcastic" note was meant for Tim and my being put on the "non-expert" part of his column. I assure you, if there's anyone that tries to get to the bottom of a rule interpretation, it's me. I've won a ton of coffee bets by simply producing some of your columns from Referee over the years; and some of your wisdom of today.

Jerry

Everybody misses one now and then. The old saying is: "Even Homer nods." Sometimes, I've looked like a bobble-head doll.

Good job of this post!

Oh, thanks for the compliments.

Problem is: You've just killed a good thread. (grin)

[dudeinblue]

Originally posted by Tim C
DudeinBlue THANKS for the compliment.

I agree with Dave Hensley.

Jerry my comments were obvious that some of us feel you kicked the interp.

Nothing sarcastic . . . just question your view. So let me get this straight . . . we can't question you, at all?

Jerry wrote: "Shame on you!"

That is almost as funny as watching a plate umpire who has been chipped at by bench personel for far too long who says:

"Cut It Out!"

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 4th, 2005 at 09:19 AM]

WOBW

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
DudeinBlue THANKS for the compliment.

Jerry wrote: "Shame on you!"

That is almost as funny as watching a plate umpire who has been chipped at by bench personel for far too long who says:

"Cut It Out!" [Edited by Tim C on Aug 4th, 2005 at 09:19 AM]

Tee: The correct order these days is: "Knock it off!"

It's still funny.

I was partial to "Shut the f*** up!" But the NCAA won't let me say that anymore: The ears of the "modren" player are too delicate.

[Tim C]

Carl:

It is my information that "Knock It Off" is also passing:

The teachings now are:

"We're Not Going To Talk About (Insert item)!"

Jerry:

I still have the same issues with some of your words.

You say things such as "the WUA . . ." and your next stement is "we teach . . ."

It appears that you are trying to make a reference that you are associated with the WUA . . . when someone calls you on it your answer will be "I was using the Royal 'We'".

You totally missed the interp as you stated it . . . yet when I took exception it was me that was the "bad guy" . . .

I stand by my original point:

You have slipped to my "non-expert" list.

Let me get this straight: You work "fantasy baseball and woman's baseball -- and you are trying to sell yourself as an expert.

Golly, I was right putting you on my "non-expert list" -- what a joke.

T



[Edited by Tim C on Aug 5th, 2005 at 12:31 AM]

[dudeinblue]

Originally posted by Tim C
Carl:

It is my information that "Knock It Off" is also passing:

The teachings now are:

"We're Not Going To Talk About (Insert item)!"

Jerry:

I still have the same issues with some of your words.

You say things such as "the WUA . . ." and your next stement is "we teach . . ."

It appears that you are trying to make a reference that you are associated with the WUA . . . when someone calls you on it your answer will be "I was using the Royal 'We'".

You totally missed the interp as you stated it . . . yet when I took exception it was me that was the "bad guy" . . .

I stand by my original point:

You have slipped to my "non-expert" list.

I are sure that bothers you little.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 4th, 2005 at 08:00 PM]

WOBW

[dudeinblue]

I'm just saying, anybody can play this game. Tim put WOBW on about 5 different posts within the last few days without anybody knowing what it meant, other than knowing it was probably an insult or smart-a$$ comment. Anybody can play this game. Now that my point is made, I will stop (I promise).