Call Of The Century

[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.

[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.