Call Of The Century

[GA Umpire]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

PU screwed up and made a call which wasn't correct. Also, it wasn't a misapplication but a misjudgment.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Regardless, it's your call and your call alone. If you were watching the play, as you should have been, you would have seen any "intentional" interference had it happened. Since it was your call, you should have gotten together and discussed it. Your partner cannot poach your call, or as we call it, step on your d*ck. Learn from this situation and file it under "experience".

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think the rule WAS misapplied here. Although PU claimed that the runner intentionally interfered, all he seemed to do was to go back into the base in fair territory. That's normal and correct baserunning, and not intentional interference with a thrown ball.

For intentional interference with a thrown ball, the runner has to actively do something to touch the ball, such as jumping in the way of it or hitting it with a limb. That's different from diving back to the base and having the ball hit you. And the OP doesn't even say that the ball hit the runner. No way this is INT.

If my PU makes this call, I'm going to ask him what he saw. It's possible he saw something that I didn't see; but if it was merely the runner diving back into the base, I'm going to suggest that he change the call based on the reasoning I just gave. After I make this suggestion, he's going to live or die with his choice.

But I will not stand back and let this go, especially since it happened right in front of me (and is at least nominally my call). I think that's a failure of the crew, as a previous poster said.

Ditto

Thanks
David

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.