Phils/Mets: Game ending interference

[Julio Caliente]

I watched the video and had some questions on the mechanics of the call (Yes, it was great call)


Here is what I saw on the video that I am not quite sure of:

- 22 sec into it looks like Mr. Bucknor first makes an out call, then an ejection motion, and then signals another out. Did he "eject" the runner?

- I thought interference the mechanic was to call time first. I did not see Mr. Bucknor call time in this situation. Should he have made a signal for time?

- If I was in the field (2 man crew) and saw this play I would have made the same call. Here is how I would have performed it:
1) Signal the runner out
2) Call time and announce that is interference.
3) Point to the runner and first and signal an out there also, and vocalize the call.. aka "out on the interference" or something of that nature
4) Sit back and wait for the OC to come out to "discuss"


Is there anything wrong with my proposed method?


Lastly, I am not questioning Mr. Bucknor's abilities or his call. Just had some questions on the mechanics.

[Tim C]

JC noted:

"22 sec into it looks like Mr. Bucknor first makes an out call, then an ejection motion, and then signals another out. Did he "eject" the runner?"

I saw this as you did. I sat back and watched it about four more times.

I "think" (as in 'my opinion') is that CB got a little excited. I "think" he just wanted to call the interference strongly . . . and headed into the ejection mechanic by accident.

There was no ejection on the play.

We know the call was spot on . . . the mechanic was a little suspect.

Regards,

[MD Longhorn]

I have the disadvantage of not having seen numerous replays ... I saw it once on Sportscenter last night after a friend of mine alerted me to watch for it.

But it appeared to me that even though the runners actions were clearly what one might normally call interference, the timing of it left me in severe doubt as to whether that interference actually interfered with anything. He had the INTENT to break up a double play, of course... but it didn't appear to me that there was any chance at a double play. In other words, he prevented a play from happening when that play was not going to happen anyway.

[Julio Caliente]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I "think" (as in 'my opinion') is that CB got a little excited. I "think" he just wanted to call the interference strongly . . . and headed into the ejection mechanic by accident.

There was no ejection on the play.

We know the call was spot on . . . the mechanic was a little suspect.

Regards,

Thanks Tim!!!!

[Julio Caliente]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But it appeared to me that even though the runners actions were clearly what one might normally call interference, the timing of it left me in severe doubt as to whether that interference actually interfered with anything. He had the INTENT to break up a double play, of course... but it didn't appear to me that there was any chance at a double play. In other words, he prevented a play from happening when that play was not going to happen anyway.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. Looking at rule 7.09d its says nothing about if the BR was going to be safe or not. In my opinion F4 was in the process of making a play on the B1 and R1 who was already out interfered with this play.


7.09d
- Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.


Here is a brain teaser....

Assume the situation was 0 out R1 and R3, instead of 1 out with R1 & R3. Same thing happens, do you call out R3 or the BR? So you would either have 2 outs and R3 or 2 outs and R1. Which is correct? I would lean towards 2 outs with R1....

I ask because 7.09f states "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference."

[PeteBooth]

Rich I am a Met fan and while I do not care for CB Buckner he did make a great call.

The problem:

This is one of those calls that is not called consistent from game to game. It's akin to running lane interference. We have seen 2 called in the past week and I can't remember any before then that's how rare of a call it is in MLB.

Perhaps we will start to see more consistency in this type of call in the future.

I have heard announcers that want the rule changed (what else is knew)

Some want this type of call to be similiar to pass interference in football meaning, after the interference call and Double play ruling, they want the umpires to huddle to ascertain (absent the Interference) if B1 would have been safe at first, hence "waving off" the second out. The football reference was that if the ball is deemed "uncatchable" the interference is waved off.

Hey Rich maybe just maybe we might just get that Re-write of the rules that we have been looking for with new interps.

In any event I agree with you Good call by CB.

Pete Booth

[blewthatone]

Originally Posted by Julio Caliente

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. Looking at rule 7.09d its says nothing about if the BR was going to be safe or not. In my opinion F4 was in the process of making a play on the B1 and R1 who was already out interfered with this play.


7.09d
- Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.


Here is a brain teaser....

Assume the situation was 0 out R1 and R3, instead of 1 out with R1 & R3. Same thing happens, do you call out R3 or the BR? So you would either have 2 outs and R3 or 2 outs and R1. Which is correct? I would lean towards 2 outs with R1....

I ask because 7.09f states "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference."

This is only if the batter interferes. If it is a runner that "willfully and deliberately" interferes then the batter is out. If the batter "willfully and deliberately" interferes then you call out the runner closest to home.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

This is one of those calls that is not called consistent from game to game. It's akin to running lane interference. We have seen 2 called in the past week and I can't remember any before then that's how rare of a call it is in MLB.

Perhaps we will start to see more consistency in this type of call in the future.

watching it i think that a big factor in callin it was how the runner SHOVED the feilder w his hands as he past by.....right in front of mr Buckner. he literaly CHUCKED the guy toward thirdbase w the palms of his hands--cant be more obvious!!

if he had just STUCK UP his hands like 99% of runers do prolly no call!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Rich I am a Met fan and while I do not care for CB Buckner he did make a great call.

The problem:

This is one of those calls that is not called consistent from game to game. It's akin to running lane interference. We have seen 2 called in the past week and I can't remember any before then that's how rare of a call it is in MLB.

Perhaps we will start to see more consistency in this type of call in the future.

I have heard announcers that want the rule changed (what else is knew)

Some want this type of call to be similiar to pass interference in football meaning, after the interference call and Double play ruling, they want the umpires to huddle to ascertain (absent the Interference) if B1 would have been safe at first, hence "waving off" the second out. The football reference was that if the ball is deemed "uncatchable" the interference is waved off.

Hey Rich maybe just maybe we might just get that Re-write of the rules that we have been looking for with new interps.

In any event I agree with you Good call by CB.

Pete Booth

I am a Phillies fan. It's the only place in baseball where I openly root for anyone. Been a fan since I was 7 years old and my mother took me to see Schmidt, Bowa, Luzinski, Cash, and the rest of the 1976 Phillies.

That said, I never look at a play with Phillies-colored glasses. It's a long season and a lot of calls are made and even the best teams lose 60 games. This one, however, was a no-brainer. Like I said, the distance from the bag on initial contact was probably OK -- it's the cross-body-block from the WWE that makes it an illegal slide.

As a Phillies fan who had the distinct "pleasure" of watching Marlon Anderson in a Philles uniform, I can say it's the best play I've ever seen him make for the Phillies.

[kylejt]

I'm still missing the "great call" part.

It's the correct call, and nothing more. Just because you don't see it called correctly in other games doesn't make it great. Unusual perhaps, but not outstanding.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kylejt

I'm still missing the "great call" part.

It's the correct call, and nothing more. Just because you don't see it called correctly in other games doesn't make it great. Unusual perhaps, but not outstanding.

It's a play that's easy to call from your couch, sure. But if you watch the play, Bucknor not only makes the call, he does it while being forced to move to get out of the way of the errant throw of Iguchi caused by the illegal slide.

It's also a great call because of the circumstances. It's easier to call nothing and let the game go into extra innings. When something unusual happens like this and the umpire is able to step up and make the call immediately and decisively......well, what is a great call?

[kylejt]

IMO, there are no great calls. Just correct calls.

We're umpires, not players making circus catches, pulling back HR's, or making Jeter plays. Either you get it right, or you don't.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I am a Phillies fan....
That said, I never look at a play with Phillies-colored glasses.

Then you must have had fun watching their June 17th game this year!

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by kylejt

IMO, there are no great calls. Just correct calls.

A great call is one that a lot of other umpires don't have the sack to call. An interference to end the game, a nut-cutter strike three with the bases loaded to end the game, balking in the winning run....a lot of guys pass on these because they subscribe to the old (and incorrect) theory that if nobody notices the umpire, then they must have done a good job. Sometimes, in order to do our jobs, we need to be noticed.

CB could have passed on this and not taken much flack over it. He stepped up made the correct call....and a great one at that!

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by kylejt

IMO, there are not great calls. Just correct calls.

We're umpires, not players making circus catches, pulling back HR's, or making Jeter plays. Either you get it right, or you don't.

I think you're the first sports official I've ever heard deny the existance of "great calls."