Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by 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).

What point? If this were a game, you'd have lost 10-0.

[dudeinblue]

Originally posted by GarthB

What point? If this were a game, you'd have lost 10-0.

Good one

[LDUB]

Originally posted by 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).

WOBW

Way to reply an hour and a half later to yourself.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by LDUB

WOBW

Way to reply an hour and a half later to yourself.

He may not have replied to himself. Some posts in the thread were deleted.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

He may not have replied to himself. Some posts in the thread were deleted.

Okay.

I change my stance to NAWOBW (Not a)

[mcrowder]

Anything he posts is a WOBw. (I refuse to capitalize the 2nd w - it's in the middle of a word).

[UMP25]

Originally posted by Jerry
TBBlue:
The rule does NOT simply state that "interference at the plate with less than 2 out". In fact, it reads "He attempts to score ON A PLAY in which the batter interferes WITH THE PLAY at home base before two are out." (7.08(g))

The batter did not interfere with a play at the plate. He interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. "He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." (6.06(c))

I believe you're confusing the two rules.

Jerry

Of course the catcher interfered with a play at the plate! He wasn't making a play at second you know.

The umpires erred in their ruling. One of my MLB friends admitted this to me in a recent conversation about this.

Being human isn't easy, you know.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.

Indeed, Carl. Many a time I've wanted to say that, but people are just too darned sensitive nowadays.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by azdist3blue
I read that the AP has reported that MLB has indicated that the umpire invoked the wrong rule and 7.08)g) should have been applied.

After observing the videoclip with a link provided by another poster, it is my opinion that Carpenter left the batter's box. Generally, regardless of his intent, that would be reason enough to call batter's interference on a bang-bang play. However, it appears Carpenter left the batter's box mostly to avoid being hit by an extremely inside pitch. That would exempt him from interference -HOWEVER- after Carpenter successfully avoids the pitch and is out of the batter's box, he makes an inexplicable movement back TOWARDS the batter's box. In my opinion, it's this last maneuver that causes it to be properly ruled as batter's interference.

Look at the clip and notice ...
1. Carpenter trying to avoid being hit with the pitch
2. Carpenter exiting the batter's box as an escape maneuver
3. Carpenter briefly step back toward the batter's box (oddly pointing at home plate with his bat)

The RUNNER should have been called out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[LMan]

good job, David. See? - just another case where "Instant Replay" availability to the umpires would have avoided all these problems

[UMP25]

Instant reply would have done nothing, for the umpires got the RULING incorrect. They knew it was batter interference; they simply called the wrong guy out.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25
Instant reply would have done nothing, for the umpires got the RULING incorrect. They knew it was batter interference; they simply called the wrong guy out.

When discussing this play and saying that the umpires got it "wrong", it needs to be made clear WHICH aspect of it they got wrong.

There are some in this thread who think batter's interference was the "wrong" call. In other words, after viewing the play, they don't think that there was any interference. Fair enough.

Then there are those (like myself) who think batter's interference was the correct call, but the application of the penalty was wrong. And it appears that MLB has admitted as much.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP25]

Dave,

In the conversation I had with my friend (he's not on the same crew), he told me Eddings and that crew got the ruling wrong. They did call batter interference with a play at the plate but simply erred in calling the wrong guy out.

Cordially,

Randy

[LMan]

Originally posted by UMP25
Instant reply would have done nothing, for the umpires got the RULING incorrect. They knew it was batter interference; they simply called the wrong guy out.

*sigh* Sarcasm is dead.

[David Emerling]

The more I look at the videoclip, the more I realize what a difficult call this was for the umpire.

These type of plays always seem to blow up in one's face.

I noticed that the PU actually signaled SAFE before pointing toward the batter for interference. I'm sure his mind must have been racing.

Like I said before, Carpenter is clearly out of the batter's box as a direct result of attempting to evade an extremely inside pitch that would have no doubt hit him had he not exited the batter's box. That should make him exempt from batter's interference provided he does nothing intentional nor additional.

The problem is that he does do something additional. He moved back toward the batter's box and remained a hindrance to the catcher. Why Carpenter made this last maneuver is difficult to understand, but the more I look at the videoclip the more I'm convinced Carpenter is trying to tell the batter WHERE to slide.

The batter's interference call was difficult enough. The penalty imposed was flat out WRONG - of that there can be no question.

I'm surprised one of the other three umpires didn't recognize the improper ruling. To me, this is one of those times where one umpire SHOULD interject himself into his partner's ruling - not to question his judgment, but to insure that the proper rule is applied.

We spend a lot of time discussing how one umpire should never interfere with another umpire's call. That's true. But that does not apply when your partner is misapplying a rule.

The fact that the umpire misapplied the rule only goes to support what I have said for many years - the higher level of ball you call, the more straight forward and predictable the game becomes. Thus, from a rules perspective ... EASIER to call. The esoteric rules you only read about on umpire exams almost never occur.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 9th, 2005 at 11:55 AM]