Rhubarb...

[canablue05]

I was watching a MiLB game on the net today. AAA PCL, Express and Rivercats.

In top ten, squeeze play. 1 out. Right handed BR somehow bunts pitch high and tight which causes him to fall on his back. Ball is up in air in front of home plate. Catcher/batter tangle in a mess, as catcher is trying to field the ball. catcher eventually gets the ball. Pitcher also tries to field the ball and slides in for catch, ball lands, R3 scores. Catcher tags BR, getting up from ground, and R3. It looked like home plate umpire pointed ball fair, but does not call anything on the play other than the point fair.

He kills the play. Calls his partners in. They discuss the play for about five-ten minutes. Both Managers get involved in the discussion. After the discussion is over they call it a foul ball. According to replay they got the call right. However, they didn't have this luxury, so I'm wondering what the umpire was pointing at, and if it was foul, why not call that right off the hop...However, the foul call was right. So c'est la vies.

I just thought it was a great job by the crew getting together to get the call right, and de-escalate the situation in which the defensive manager was heated.

Had the ball landed fair, I'm curious to interpretations on what we'd have.

Who has priority here? The catcher fielding the ball? Does the batter have to hold up in the box to avoid the catcher leaving the catchers box to field a ball in front of home plate? Although in this instance the batter was laying on his back in the box. As the pitcher is also making an attempt to field the ball, could we have an argument for obstruction on the catcher? Or is this just a trainwreck? In which case R3 would score on the play, BR would be out on the tag.

If this is interference, R3 would be out in this situation as there's only 1 out. Correct? We have to punish the offensive team, and this would be the maximum punishment. 2 out, BR is out.

Overall, I'll agree with the commentator who stated: "I've never seen anything like that before."

I love this game.

[bob jenkins]

If the batter and catcher tangle in the immediate area of home plate, it's (likely) nothing. 7.09(j)

You can get two outs only if BR intentionally and willfully interferes with the intent to break up a double play. 7.09(g)

The rest is a HTBT.

[bluezebra]

"It looked like home plate umpire pointed ball fair, but does not call anything on the play other than the point fair."

Proper mechanic. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER verbalize "Fair Ball".

Bob

[ozzy6900]

Who has priority here? The catcher fielding the ball? Does the batter have to hold up in the box to avoid the catcher leaving the catchers box to field a ball in front of home plate?

Ask Carlton Fisk those questions!

[lawump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Ask Carlton Fisk those questions!

Yeah, "Larry" and "Barnett" are still both four letter words in my native neck-of-the-woods.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Ask Carlton Fisk those questions!

As we learned in Fisk vs. Armbrister, sounds like PU did a nice job here with neither obstruction or interference.

It sounds like the ball wasn't fielded that quickly though, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how PU originally pointed fair but then went for some help. Minor League Game, 3 umpires. We know R3, but what about other runners? Do we have umpires in D AND A here? What foul line was the ball dancing with? I guess PU got screened by a tangling BR, F2, and R3 somehow. Clarification?

-Tuss

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

It sounds like the ball wasn't fielded that quickly though, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how PU originally pointed fair but then went for some help.
-Tuss

From the OP

Ball is up in air in front of home plate. Catcher/batter tangle in a mess, as catcher is trying to field the ball. catcher eventually gets the ball.

I am trying to visualize but we have a "lot" of action at home plate. When the PU first saw the ball it was in Fair territory hence the reason he pointed. Now the most important part catcher eventually gets the ball

In baseball, Fair vs. Foul is determined where the ball is not where the player is. With all the action in front of home plate perhpas the PU did not know exactly where the Ball was when F2 finally got it. As mentioned he pointed fair because at the time he saw the ball in fair territory but then when all the action happened, he wasn't so sure so he called in his partners.

Remember it's much easier to change a Fair call to FOUL then the other way around even though as mentioned on this Forum it has been done.

However the OP also said that the umpires huddled for some 5 / 10 minutes which IMO means that perhaps they amongst themselves could not come up with a difintive call, hence the "failsafe" Foul call because if one of them was sure the ball was Foul, then the conversation between the group should not have lasted as long as it had.

Pete Booth

[canablue05]

Sorry guys I'll clarify. In front of the warzone, ball was in air on first base side. R3 only. U1 is in A. The catcher got the ball, IMO he touched it just in foul territory on first base side.

Zebra...sorry I was referring to the plate umpire not calling anything such as interference, obstruction, catch no catch, on top of the fair signal...

As Pete mentioned, I also thought that the 'foul' call was a failsafe...however from the camera angle, it didn't look like the umpire was screened out on the fair/foul call, but perhaps he got sidetracked with the body of pile up around the dish. The replay also confirmed that indeed it was a foul ball. Thank God.

From my count he had at least four concurrent calls to make!

1. Fair/foul.
2. R3 touch of home plate.
3.Possible interference/obstruction.
4. Catch/No Catch.

Probably not all in that order.

He certainly was earning his money that day.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by lawump

Yeah, "Larry" and "Barnett" are still both four letter words in my native neck-of-the-woods.

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

Perhaps you would do well to realize that lawump was speaking "tongue-in-cheek," in accordance with OBR Rule 11.3(a)(1) which states that sarcasm runs wild on umpiring forums. I am quite certain that former professional umpire "lawump" is well aware of the proper interpretation.

[UMP25]

Be careful, Steve. You're talking to someone who believes Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver are among the most intelligent baseball people around.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

We are all well aware of the reasoning behind Barnett's ruling! Especially those of us who were not only alive but present when the incident occurred! Once Barnett gave his explanation (which was heard over the roar of Carlton Fisk), the application seemed correct (but still painful). We really don't need J/R to tell us their blow hard explanation of a ruling that just about changed the face of baseball!