Call Of The Century

[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.

[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.

[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.