The runner does not have the right to his path on a batted ball. A fielder attempting to field a batted ball has the unfettered right to do so, assuming he a) is the fielder more likely than any other to field the ball, and b) he has not misplayed the ball so that it is outside of his immediate position (defined as a step and a reach.)

Play in question involves a fielder in the act of fielding a BATTED ball. The fielder's right to field the ball unimpeded is absolute. The runner must not interfere.

Your play at the plate involves the catcher receiving a THROWN ball. A fielder does not have the same protection from interference on a thrown ball as he does on a batted ball.

(Which it looks like Matt posted as I was typing my response! :) )

I have INT also, in both cases, but let's discuss the bigger question that has been raised here.

Let's say you are BU, and with R1 stealing the batter interferes with catcher's throw. PU properly calls INT, then calls R1 out and leaves the batter at the plate. No one argues, clearly the defense is better off so if the defensive coach knows the rule he is not saying. Offensive coach clearly does not know the rule and PU does not either, but you the BU do.

No judgment call involved here, clearly rule mis-application. And some will stick that info in their pocket and post game this?

For instance, a few weeks ago...R2 stealing on the pitch with two outs, B3 swings at the pitch and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R3 and is interfered with by B2. PU calls runner out on the interference. I approach PU and discuss the situation with him. He corrected the call, B2 is out for interference. Are you saying I shouldn't correct that error? We should start the next inning off with B2 at bat? There is a difference between throwing the partner under the bus (ie "Hey Randy you're wrong!" from 30 feet away or telling the coach he screwed that call up) and getting the call right because of a rules interpretation/knowledge error.

-Josh

Both of these have the same key difference with the OP--this is a matter of enforcement, not of the application of the rule as to the circumstances of the play. In both of these cases, the correct call is made; it is the penalty that is incorrect. Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction--look at the more common example of balks and obstruction. Often, the calling umpire is not the only one that will have enforcement duties--if BU calls obstruction, PU will often have a better ability to determine the base to award in the case of that runner attempting to advance multiple bases. Likewise, if PU calls a balk, it is often BU that calls "Time" when appropriate and awards bases.

In the OP the poster initiated the consultation on his own. Do you really think the offended manager, knowing the rule, wouldn't have initiated an "ask for help" request?

In the OP it got fixed before it got to the protest point. A protest wasn't necessary.

Would you let a partner get away with a "strike two- - you're out" call?

It's that simple.

You said "There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them." I certainly felt like you were in the "don't mention it camp" by this statement.

Another example. First batter of a middle inning grounds out. Offensive coach comes out with scorebook in hand, defensive coaches joins in. No argument, just gentlemanly discussion with PU. They separate to their respective dugouts and the next batter comes to the plate and PU shows and says "2 outs". Now if you were BU would you wonder how we could have one batter and 2 outs and call time to ask the PU, or would you post-game this so it would not appear to be throwing the PU under the bus?

Which was absolutely wrong.

The OP makes no mention of whether that manager knew the rule or not. I've seen plenty of times where knowledgeable managers have chosen not to pursue a legitimate issue after perfunctory argument.

Oh, yes, it was.

I wouldn't have to. If it was a case of a missed count, then he can rectify it--it's his count, and if he wants my input, he can ask for it. If it was a case of knowingly calling an out with two strikes, it's going to get to the stage where I am required by rule to provide input. If, by some happenstance, the offense doesn't protest, I'm not saying jack.

Neither. I give him the "what's the situation?" signal, and when he flashes two, I flash back one.

There is no way, I can know that my partner mis-applied a rule unless he tells me so, for this sceneario. Therefore, unless he initates a discussion, I am not taking him to the side and straighting him out. This seems more as though the PU decided that his partner made the wrong call and stepped in to make sure it was changed. Wether he intended to or not. The rookie was thrown under the bus. As already stated, unless the rookie called time and asked, then the situation lended itself to a post game discussion only.

"What's the situation sign?" What does that look like? And when he flashes back two again you give him the "what's the situation" signal again?

Situation 1: R1 stealing, batter interferes with catcher on the throw. PU properly rules INT and calls the runner out and batter remains at the plate. You are BU.

Situation 2. With runner on 1B and 1 out in the 7th inning of tie game between two conference rivals. Visiting team batter comes to the plate and takes ball one. Defensive coach comes out to PU with scorebook in hand, defensive coach joins, gentlemanly discussion and then PU calls the batter out. You are BU

Situation 3. Fly ball to F7, F7 catches the ball below the waste on the run, snow-cone style, ball touches the dirt but he comes up with the ball no bobble. BU rules no catch. You are PU.

Do you flash the "what's the situation signal" for these too, or call time for discussion? 1 and 3 are clearly misapplied rules and 2 has potential to be.

I cannot be the only one that consistently has partners of at least average intelligence. What is wrong with your partners that they can't take a hint? Do you seriously have a problem finding umpires that don't drool all over themselves unless you remind them to close their mouths?

Already answered.

I've got nothing for him, since I don't know why the out was called.

It's entirely his call. For all I know, he could have seen the ball be dislodged momentarily upon contact with the ground.

No, 2 and 3 aren't "clearly misapplied rules." All of these are plays in which the other umpire has responsibility, and is the one who has to make the call, and has better position to see all relevant factors. You seem to ignore the fact that the offended team has the ability to get any misapplication rectified--and my responsibility starts at that point, or the point where my partner asks for help, and not before.

Without being too flip about it:
 

I would flip the coin, call "heads" in this situation, then make my call... :D

You mean that "Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction" is your already answer?

Answer a straight question. Would you post-game an obvious mis-application of rule or have discussion during the game to potentially correct?

Yep.

That's not a straight question. If I have shared or primary responsibility for a decision, then I would rectify it at that time. If not, it goes after the game. I'd be giving the "I have something for you" signal throughout the ensuing discussion, but no overt input.