INT is the call of any umpire who sees it. Generally, it is the one closer but, in this case, it was a matter of the runner crossing in front of F2's throw. That would be PU's call since he can see this from his vantage point.

Now, with that said, this is not INT. Not even close. R3 would have to grab F5 as he is sliding head first or something.

Also, I don't see it to be the BU's call to huddle on the call or get involved. It's NOT his decision. It is the decision of the calling umpire or maybe, UIC if one is appointed. Those who say PU poached the call I would think would agree that once he did, the BU would be poaching on his responsibilities on that end.

PU screwed up and made a call which wasn't correct. Also, it wasn't a misapplication but a misjudgment. He stated "The runner did it on purpose" which equates to intent though I don't agree with it but it was in his judgment. BU shouldn't have said what he did to anyone but his partner if his partner asked and away from everybody. The reason is if his partner decided he may be wrong, he can't use a conference to say to his partner "I was wrong and need to correct. Just wanted to conference to make it look like we worked it out." Now, he can't use that and pretty much, had to stick with his call even if he did feel it was wrong afterward. There are reasons why the non-calling umpire keeps quiet about a play.

There were mistakes made. But, the biggest one would have been the BU trying to change a call in which he had no business being a part of once the PU made it. The PU owned his call unless convinced otherwise to ask about it which he didn't. So, BU stayed out of it as he should.

Disagree. A mistake of judgment is calling a runner out when he beat the throw. Thinking that getting hit by a throw counts as intentional INT is a misapplication because it fails to understand the concept of the rule.

I disagree with your disagreement. He judged that the runner intentionally interfered with the throw, which means he felt the runner did something besides just getting hit by the throw. The offended coach should have asked the PU what the runner did to interfere, and then protest if the runner was simply hit with the throw, and did nothing illegal.

If PU poached my call, or no call, as the case may be, then he owns it. I am not going to initiate a discussion with him but if he does I will tell him that was my call and I made none, because it was not interference. He can take that feedback and do what he wants with it.

Postgame will be interesting.

Ditto

Thanks
David

Nope. You've contradicted yourself. If PU made an error in judgment, then the coach has no grounds for protest. If the coach has grounds for protest, then it's not merely an error in judgment.

There are 2 cases here:

1. IF the PU judged that the player did more to interfere than just get hit by the throw, then we're good. When I ask what the runner did, he can tell me what he saw. He's applying the rule correctly in this case, and if he's wrong about what he saw that's a mistake in judgment. There's no case for a protest here.

2. IF the PU ruled that the runner is out for INT merely because the throw hit him, that's a mistake in applying the rules. That's what I'm checking for when we discuss it; and I'm going to suggest that we fix it rather than allow the coach an opportunity to protest.

IMO the OP sounds like case 2, but since we don't have all the facts it's hard to be sure.

This I agree with.