Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by LMan

*sigh* Sarcasm is dead.

Perhaps an emoticon might have helped, for sarcasm is difficult to convey in the printed form. I know. I've tried myself before.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David Emerling
I noticed that the PU actually signaled SAFE before pointing toward the batter for interference.

That's the proper mechanic -- if the runner had been out, then the interference would have been ignored, and there wasn't time to point out the interference before the call (on the play) needed to be made.

[UMP25]

Dave, I respectfully disagree with you. While this call isn't the easiest one in the world to make, it is not as difficult as you claim it is.

I'll preface my comments by saying that I am NOT claiming to be better than Eddings is--he's the MLB Ump, I'm not. However, I have had batter interference many times at levels from D1 on down, including in some big-time, high-profile games, and I have yet to mess it up in the manner Eddings did.

I don't know why so many people are focusing on the batter being out of the box or not. Whether he is in the box or outside of it, in such a play, if he interferes with a play at the plate while a batter, he's guilty of batter interference.

It's understandable if Eddings has to pause a second--the human brain takes time to process multiple events like that--but he still could have pointed to the batter, yelled, "That's interference!", let the play go through since it's a delayed dead ball, then called time and made the proper ruling. I don't mean to sound condescending, but it's not that difficult to do.

Cordially...

[LMan]

Originally posted by UMP25

Perhaps an emoticon might have helped, for sarcasm is difficult to convey in the printed form. I know. I've tried myself before.

I did use an emoticon in my post...it looked like this:



perhaps it did not come through?

[UMP25]

Or perhaps I looked right past it. No big deal.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25
Dave, I respectfully disagree with you. While this call isn't the easiest one in the world to make, it is not as difficult as you claim it is.

I'll preface my comments by saying that I am NOT claiming to be better than Eddings is--he's the MLB Ump, I'm not. However, I have had batter interference many times at levels from D1 on down, including in some big-time, high-profile games, and I have yet to mess it up in the manner Eddings did.

I don't know why so many people are focusing on the batter being out of the box or not. Whether he is in the box or outside of it, in such a play, if he interferes with a play at the plate while a batter, he's guilty of batter interference.

It's understandable if Eddings has to pause a second--the human brain takes time to process multiple events like that--but he still could have pointed to the batter, yelled, "That's interference!", let the play go through since it's a delayed dead ball, then called time and made the proper ruling. I don't mean to sound condescending, but it's not that difficult to do.

Cordially...

I'm not suggesting that the RULING is difficult. I agree with you and I'm also quite surprised that the umpires called the wrong player out. Once the batter's interference has been determined, the ruling should be simple.

What I'm suggesting is difficult is the proper call in the first place. In other words, WAS it or was it NOT, batter's interference. That can be very difficult since the umpire is often caught by surprise as much as the defense.

Although we will ALL agree that the umpires called the wrong player out (the ruling) ... we will NOT all agree as to whether Carpenter was guilty of batter's interference. That's the hard part!

I disagree with you with regards to the importance as to whether the batter was in the batter's box or not.

If a batter remains in the batter's box on a bang-bang play (like this one), he really can't be called for batter's interference as long as he doesn't do anything intentional or make any other movement (that interferes) that is unrelated to his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch.

On the other hand, if the batter leaves the batter's box (even if his exit is well intentioned) he is liable for batter's interference.

In my opinion Carpenter left the batter's box primarily to avoid being hit by the pitch. He hindered the catcher by doing this but it is NOT batter's interference because he is allowed to do that. HOWEVER ... Carpenter then made a movement back towards the batter's box (for some unknown reason). This maneuver further hindered the catcher and now it IS batter's interference.

You seem to be suggesting interference is interference ... whether he's in or out of the batter's box. It's not nearly that simple.

Would you call batter's interference when a right-handed batter just stands there with a runner attempting to steal 3rd and, by just standing there, the catcher is forced to throw around him? That is NOT batter's interference.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP25]

Originally posted by David Emerling
You seem to be suggesting interference is interference ... whether he's in or out of the batter's box. It's not nearly that simple.

Here's where I respectfully disagree, Dave. I believe that too many of us make these calls that difficult when in such situations they really are simpler than what we think.

Here, the umpire making the call (Eddings) and MLB both quickly and simply admitted the wrong ruling was made; yet on this board we've had guys go round and round as if they're actually trying to say the ruling shouldn't have been made because it wasn't batter's interference on a play at the plate.

When such a play develops, I ask myself in a rather "simplistic" way: "Did the batter screw up the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate?" Like you and many others here, I've been umpiring long enough to know the answer to this, and to know that such plays don't always require a complex analysis.

We as umpires tend to be so overly analytical that I believe we are our worst enemies, particularly on open forums like this. In other words, if umpires are asked for the time, we should just give it and not tell someone how to build a watch.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25

Here's where I respectfully disagree, Dave. I believe that too many of us make these calls that difficult when in such situations they really are simpler than what we think.

Here, the umpire making the call (Eddings) and MLB both quickly and simply admitted the wrong ruling was made; yet on this board we've had guys go round and round as if they're actually trying to say the ruling shouldn't have been made because it wasn't batter's interference on a play at the plate.

When such a play develops, I ask myself in a rather "simplistic" way: "Did the batter screw up the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate?" Like you and many others here, I've been umpiring long enough to know the answer to this, and to know that such plays don't always require a complex analysis.

We as umpires tend to be so overly analytical that I believe we are our worst enemies, particularly on open forums like this. In other words, if umpires are asked for the time, we should just give it and not tell someone how to build a watch.

But any official's job is to make certain fine discernments that often make a HUGE difference.

Call it fair ... and it's a grand slam! Call it foul ... and it's nothing. Big difference. And we're often talking about fractions of inches. Yet, we must decide.

Granted, when you look at the videoclip the first thing that jumps out and offends your eyes is Carpenter's hindrance of the catcher. That's not something we see very often. The whole play is practically screaming, "Batter's interference!"

Yet, there can be no doubt that the only reason Carpenter backed out of the box was to prevent a fastball from ringing off his calf. The reason the catcher ended up so far to one side (the same side as Carpenter) was because he had to lunge in that direction to even catch the ball ... which came very close to being a WILD pitch.

In analyzing this play, nobody seems to ask, "What in the hell was the catcher doing almost 10-feet to the left of the plate?" Of course, the answer is, "To catch the ball."

You can't call a player out for batter's interference when the defense forces his hand by throwing the ball at the batter. The batter must be granted escape privileges, and, if while doing that "escape" he happens to inadvertently find himself hindering the catcher ... that's too bad for the defense.

Yet, ultimately, Carpenter did interfere.

It's no fun making these quick decisions that will almost certainly be questioned with very little time to reflect on exactly what happened ... but that's no reason to simply shrug one's shoulder and dismiss it by saying, "it's simpler than we're making it."

I think you WANT it to be simple but, in fact, these are often difficult calls.

I'm convinced that Carpenter was called for interference for his INITIAL move and not for the second move (that I pointed out) he made back toward the plate.

MLB, the umpires, and the teams collectively shrugged their shoulders on this play because it was a relatively unimportant event in a relatively unimportant game. It makes an ESPN highlight and life goes on.

Had this been the winning run in an important game and Carpenter was called for batter's interference for doing nothing more than leaping out of the way of an extremely off target pitch ... it would be another piece of baseball history that would be played over and over and over again almost as much as Gary Carter waving that ball fair down the left line. It wouldn't be forgotten, rather, it would be emblazoned in our memories for all time.

And the tagline would be ... THE UMP BLEW IT!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 13th, 2005 at 03:43 AM]

[UMP25]

Originally posted by David Emerling
I'm convinced that Carpenter was called for interference for his INITIAL move and not for the second move (that I pointed out) he made back toward the plate.

Whether it was the initial move or the second, though, if the umpire believed he hindered the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate, it's interference. Of course, one could always argue if the umpire then erred by giving the defense way too much latitude.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25

Whether it was the initial move or the second, though, if the umpire believed he hindered the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate, it's interference. Of course, one could always argue if the umpire then erred by giving the defense way too much latitude.

Absolutely not!

You have a far too simplistic view of what constitutes batter's interference.

A batter can certainly HINDER a catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner (whether IN or OUT of the batter's box) and not be guilty of interference.

If he remains in the batter's box ... as long as the play can be characterized as a bang-bang play, he cannot be guilty of interference provided he does nothing intentional nor makes any movement unassociated with his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch. The batter can turn into a statue even if, by doing so, he hinders the catcher. We see this all the time on steal attempts. There are no special burdens on the batter for plays at the plate.

If he exits the batter's box ... that act alone is interference UNLESS he stumbled out of the batter's box as a direct result of his swing or an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch.

In my opinion, it's this latter condition that characterizes the play in question involving Carpenter.

Carpenter skipped backwards out of the batter's box to avoid the pitch hitting him on his leg. So far he's fine. But then he made an inexplicable step BACK IN THE DIRECTION of the batter's box. THAT'S INTERFERENCE!

An argument can be made that the defense was responsible for putting themselves in an awkward situation that ended up giving the catcher great difficulty in tagging out the runner at the plate.

Imagine how easy the tag would have been had the pitch been thrown more accurately. It wouldn't even have been close. The runner would've been out by a mile.

Again, I think it is incorrect to say it's batter's interference whenever the batter hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 14th, 2005 at 08:39 AM]

[UMP25]

I never said it's interference "whenever" the batter hinders the catcher. You obviously blew right past my entire previous comment.

Look, I know what is and what is not batter interference. While not perfect, I have earned the ability to know rule applications, B.I. being one of them. I don't need to be told that the batter can stay in the box and do nothing and not be guilty of interference. I also am fully aware that the defense, in B.I. and many other similar situations, can take turn a potential interference call into a "that's nothing" or even an obstruction call.

Despite your explanations, I do know when it's simple to make this call and the appropriate ruling. I also believe we umpires are our worst enemies when we continually split the atoms of such plays. Granted, umpiring is not a piece of cake, so to speak, but it's not as complex as too many of us believe.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25
I never said it's interference "whenever" the batter hinders the catcher. You obviously blew right past my entire previous comment.

Look, I know what is and what is not batter interference. While not perfect, I have earned the ability to know rule applications, B.I. being one of them. I don't need to be told that the batter can stay in the box and do nothing and not be guilty of interference. I also am fully aware that the defense, in B.I. and many other similar situations, can take turn a potential interference call into a "that's nothing" or even an obstruction call.

Despite your explanations, I do know when it's simple to make this call and the appropriate ruling. I also believe we umpires are our worst enemies when we continually split the atoms of such plays. Granted, umpiring is not a piece of cake, so to speak, but it's not as complex as too many of us believe.

Then I apologize.

It just seemed to me that you were continually saying that IF a batter hinders the catcher then it IS batter's interference. Your comments were sparse on illuminating comments regarding exceptions ... which certainly exist.

The play in question, in my opinion, highlighted one of those exceptions - so that ended up (somewhat) being the focus of the thread. Of course I certainly leave room for the possibility that two umpires can view the same play and see it differently.

It wasn't my intent to lecture you on the topic. It's just that you continued to participate in this tangent to the thread without ever seemingly acknowledging that there ARE exceptions that make a play that SEEMS like batter's interference actually NOT batter's interference.

I kept saying that IF one accepts the view that Carpenter left the batter's box for the purpose of avoiding the pitch, then you MUST exonerate him from batter's interference regardless of whatever hindrance this may have provided to the catcher. Your responses tended to focus on the simplistic notion that IF he hindered the catcher then he DID interfere. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't that simple. That's all.

Again, I apologize if I seemed preachy.

If we talked (instead of wrote) about this ... we'd probably discover that we actually had identical views of what constitutes batter's interference.

Sorry.

It think we've probably beat this one to death, huh?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP25]

Indeed. It's been beaten senseless.

Sometimes I think we umpires shouldn't beat these things so badly--God knows I enjoy (too much) rules discussions; instead, we really ought to get a life, but that's just me.