Angels/White Sox Game 5

[rulesmaven]

Originally posted by gordon30307

Tough luck. Players are presumed to know what's going on. If they are effected by a call that's their problem. You might recall game three where catcher's interference wasn't called. If Finley runs to first without looking back to home he beats the throw easily and isn't doubled up and a run scores. Stupid play on Finleys part.

How far do you take the "tough luck" principle? One very fundamental purpose of mechanics, of course, is to give players and the other umpires clear guidance during the play about what their obligations are. On the one hand, players should be presumed to know that many calls are subject to reversal. But how far do you take that? If Eddings had yelled, in game 2, "that's a catch, strike three, batter is out," but AJ, having seen the ball hit the dirt, waited until the catcher ran off the field in reliance on Edding's call, and then ran to first base and asked the PU to ask for help from 3U, I would think at some point reliance has to come into the question, even if the PU would otherwise think help might be appropriate in the situation and even if 3U was prepared to say no catch.

I also think it's a little harsh to blame Finley on the catcher interference play. The crew missed the correct call, IMHO, and that's not Finley's fault. Criticizing a player for not knowing how to exactly react to a missed call really shifts too much of the burden. If MLB is going to allow or require umps like Eddings to sit in press conferences or give quotes to the press after games in which they talk about which player "sold" what, and to talk about looking to player reactions to help them "sell" their calls, then you can't blame Finley for trying to "sell" the call before running down the first base line.

[Edited by rulesmaven on Oct 17th, 2005 at 08:25 PM]