Phils/Mets: Game ending interference

[David B]

Originally Posted by greymule

I agree that if you can remotely make a case that there was a play, you call the interference. Any doubt whatsoever goes to the offended team. "Would have been safe" does not automatically mean there was no play.

On a related line in this thread, if there is no such thing as a great call, then there is no such thing as a bad call. All calls are simply either correct or incorrect.

I agree with Rich, this was a great call. A great call because it was a game-ending call (that takes lots of guts by any umpire no matter what level) and also because his mechanics were superb completely following the play and the runner and then making the call.

And since you rarely see this call in MLB that qualifies it as such at least IMO.

thanks
David

[RPatrino]

CB's mechanics of avoiding the batted ball, maintaining angle and seeing the play were good, I agree. His signalling was a bit goofy, IMO.

Bottom line, he got the call right, sold it and had the huevos to make the gutsy call.