Call Of The Century

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Looks like the crew blew it. Yes, the crew, including you. At the very least, you should have gotten together to see if a rule was misapplied. If you knew a rule was misapplied, you are just as guilty as your partner. If you felt that you didn't need to get together during the game, you should of at least had a good post game to talk about it. Ignoring it, then laughing at it does no good. I am not impressed.

The BU ruled that R3 intentionally interfered with F5, so no rule could have been misapplied; it was strictly a judgment call at that point. From the OP stating that F5 didn't pick it at 3rd, apparently the BU felt R3 intentionally hindered his effort to field the ball. I do agree that the BU at least owed MOofficial an explanation after the game.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The BU ruled that R3 intentionally interfered with F5, so no rule could have been misapplied; it was strictly a judgment call at that point. From the OP stating that F5 didn't pick it at 3rd, apparently the BU felt R3 intentionally hindered his effort to field the ball. I do agree that the BU at least owed MOofficial an explanation after the game.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that PU made this call and MOo was BU.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Matt

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that PU made this call and MOo was BU.

Ya know what, I think you're right! Then why a) did MOo allow the PU to take what should have been his call? and b) why did the PU poach the call without being asked to start with?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Ya know what, I think you're right! Then why a) did MOo allow the PU to take what should have been his call? and b) why did the PU poach the call without being asked to start with?

Exactly...that's why this: "I state 'There is no way I can see that play or give any help on that play as to where your runner was at'" is so troubling.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Matt

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that PU made this call and MOo was BU.

From the OP: "When the game is complete, my partner stands on the field waiting to give game balls back..."

I would think so too, although a better idea would be to leave the game balls on the plate and get out of Dodge.

[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.

[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

[BK47]

Your situation reminded me of a situation I had in a VA game a while back. I was UIC on the plate (can’t bring myself to say PU, get it?) and had one BU. We had one out, R1 on second and R2 on first with BU in the “C”. RHB in the box hits a bouncing liner up the third base line, I point “Fair” as F5 fields the ball. I turn immediately towards first base to watch BR run up the line. I then see an over throw to first base where the ball goes all the way to the fence. At this time R2 has reached second base and is now on his way to third with BR running to second while R1 is now headed home. Defense picks up ball and throws to F5, now F5 and F2 have R1 in a rundown between 3rd and home. I yell to my partner “I got front side you got back” which he acknowledges and F2 finally tags out R1 with R2 safely reaching 3rd. After F2 tags out R1 he rolls the ball up to the mound and the defensive players start to run off the field. (Confused yet, I know I was and still am) OC, who is the 3rd base coach, tells R2 to go home and calls BR to 3rd, DC comes out of the dugout and asks what is going on, that’s three outs. I look over to him and motion “No” and show him “2” with my fingers. He tells his players to get the ball and tag the runner which they do. (Still confused?) The OC and DC both converge on us to find out the ruling, DC saying they had three outs while OC was saying only 2 and that the run that R2 scored should count. I call time and let me partner talk to DC as I kind of just stand an ear shout away. He motions to me and we talk and I ask him “What the hell just happened here, what is going on?”

He tells me that we started out with one out, correct. He tells me that he had R1 out at third base, that’s now two outs. And that the rundown is the third out. I tell him we can’t have R1 out twice, both on your out at third and then in the rundown. I ask him why he didn’t say anything while we were in the rundown, why did he let the rundown happen. He looks at me with a deer in the head lights look. I asked him did you say anything on the out at third to which he replied “No I just held up my fist”. I told him next time say something, yell “Out at 3 or at least SOMETHING”. So now we, HE, has a real s**thouse to contend with. I walked over to the DC and explained to him what was happening and he was a little pissed but understood while BU talks to OC and explains what we are doing. We put R2 back at third and BR on second which in my mind would have been the end of that play had nothing else happened. No run and now with 2 outs the inning continued.

What a cluster-f**k that was. After the game I told BU again to say something next time, don’t just stick up your fist. With so much going on players and coaches need to know what is happening both verbally as well as hand signals.

Now hind sight being 20/20 I probably should have stayed with R1 instead of releasing the ball once F5 had it to watch BR for lane infractions.

[MOofficial]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The BU ruled that R3 intentionally interfered with F5, so no rule could have been misapplied; it was strictly a judgment call at that point. From the OP stating that F5 didn't pick it at 3rd, apparently the BU felt R3 intentionally hindered his effort to field the ball. I do agree that the BU at least owed MOofficial an explanation after the game.

I was the BU, in the "C" position. I had nothing to do with this call. My partner who was at the plate called the interference at third, not me. He never asked me for anything and all the coach said to me was can we get help, and I said there is no way I could help as I wasn't looking down the line at the play

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

I was the BU, in the "C" position. I had nothing to do with this call. My partner who was at the plate called the interference at third, not me. He never asked me for anything and all the coach said to me was can we get help, and I said there is no way I could help as I wasn't looking down the line at the play

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".

[jkumpire]

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.... Learn from this situation and file it under "experience".

I sympathize with everyone who says Mo needs to get involved here. I tend to agree with it, but I see where he is coming from. He's in C, the PU makes this screwy call. Manager comes out, and gives PU an earful. Now, PU comes to Mo:

PU: "Mo, I got INT on R3."
MO: "What did he do?"
PU: "He interfered with the throw."
MO: "That's my call, PU. What did he do?"
PU: "You couldn't see the INT."
MO: "You're right, I didn't see it. Are you sure you had INT?"
PU: "Yes MO I did."

What is MO to do? He is the BU; in Fed by rule, if both umpires disagree, then the UIC's decision stands. MO can tell the PU he is an idiot, or tell him gently there was no INT, or offer him $25 to change his mind. But if the PU had INT, he's not changing his mind on the judgment call at this point, is he?

My guess is that MO knows he has no chance to change PU's mind, so he lets it go. He may well have known he has nowhere to go to change things.

And to push it is to really mess the game up. He can't overrule him.

MO, sorry for you and your partner's ignorance. 99% for you. Maybe next time try to change things, no matter how hopeless it is.

[umpjim]

Was this a playoff game? Was your partner from your chapter? What does "looking down the line" or "where the runner was at" mean? That's already two versions of what you told the coach. When you said that (either version) to the coach you might have inferred to the coach that where the runner was would make a difference in the ruling and the PU was right because he could see where the runner was at and you couldn't. Something doesn't sound right. Postgame, I would not let my partner walk off without an explanation and a rebuttal if necessary.

[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.