3B Coach Interference Ends Game

[UMP25]

Respect must be earned. Just because a person hasn't earned it, however, doesn't mean that person should be disrespected.

As my father once told me growing up, "The only person who deserved respect died on the cross 2000 years ago."

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by UMP25

As my father once told me growing up, "The only person who deserved respect died on the cross 2000 years ago."

Absolutely!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UMP25

No. Marquez used the push signal (football's pass interference signal) to tell the coach that he pushed the runner, which he in no way did. Because Marquez never saw what truly happened, he simply thought a push occurred. It did not; he erred. Big time.

Not sure I buy this, if he saw enough to make the call, he would have known there was no push. Even a corner-of-the-eye view wouldn't lead him to think there was a push. I assumed when I was watching the replay that it was just the mechanic he was using to convey the call.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not sure I buy this, if he saw enough to make the call,

Therein lies the problem. He didn't see it.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Therein lies the problem. He didn't see it.

Yeah, he made it up. Seriously.

[UMP25]

No, it's a trick of the mind common to everyone, especially eyewitnesses of crimes. They truly believe they saw something that did not happen because their mind had a preconceived assumption. There is a reason, for example, that eye witnesses are often considered the worst kind of "evidence" to have.

Seriously.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by UMP25

No, it's a trick of the mind common to everyone, especially eyewitnesses of crimes. They truly believe they saw something that did not happen because their mind had a preconceived assumption. There is a reason, for example, that eye witnesses are often considered the worst kind of "evidence" to have.

Seriously.

So, the official 'eyewitness' to that curve on the outside corner cannot be trusted?

[UMP25]

If you're CB Bucknor, Angel Hernandez, or a few others, no.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UMP25

If you're CB Bucknor, Angel Hernandez, or a few others, no.

You mean the next crew chief Angel Hernandez?

[johnnyg08]

cognitive dissonance? I think Texas saw something that was there, but they perceived it to not be there.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by UMP25

No, it's a trick of the mind common to everyone, especially eyewitnesses of crimes. They truly believe they saw something that did not happen because their mind had a preconceived assumption. There is a reason, for example, that eye witnesses are often considered the worst kind of "evidence" to have.

Seriously.

This assumption is far easier for the eyewitness to make when the subject is black. You're from Illinois; you should know this as well as anyone, because the former governor of Illinois had the balls to admit that innocent people have been put to death or were scheduled to be put to death for crimes they did not commit, and he put a stop to it in his state. Meanwhile, the former governor of Texas signed off on 150 death warrants he admits he never even read. There is no chance in hell that all those people were guilty, but someone had to be blamed and pay with their life.

Eyewitness testimony is based on a person swearing on a bible that they're telling the truth. At all other times, our system requires proof. What a joke.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UMP25

If you don't like it, fine. No need to post your indignation toward a simple saying.

I don't oppose the messenger, nor the message; however, I often find errors in the various political, religious and racial translations. Everyone deserves respect, earned or not (such as the unborn child, the sick, the poor, the Polish, etc.). That same message is older than Moses and has nothing to do with the thread though. Why didn't the coaches protest so that official ruling could have been made by the two league offices?

I saw two umpires who read their rulebooks and then over-analized two different situations. Leave it to the rule makers here to make these two situations illegal by rule. I will continue to believe these rule interpretations were made up by a small group of umpires. That doesn't mean that it has been adopted by committee of people responsible for making the rules up. I didn't see interference here and I didn't see Pudge interfere. I find that the rulebook was CORRECTLY applied. The Nats deserved a RUN a week ago and the Rangers deserved another at-bat here, but the rulebook was used to prevent it. Does that ONE interpretation now apply everywhere, ala always interference on any contact?

It's the coaches job and the on-deck hitters job to assist the runners. It the teammates job to assist their teammates. The rule book states the Coach (or player) cannot physically assist the runner. I do not agree w/ those who state the runner is still a runner after he passes HP untouched. The offense could have beat the mess out of him if that is what it took to get him to go back and retouch. They do no have to let him enter the dugout undisturbed, either. I do not believe the Rangers' 3BC physically assisted a very abled and gifted athlete beat the tag. I saw the same player steal HOME earlier this season in a similar situation. In both cases, I saw umpires BAIL OUT the defense, and make a travesty of the game. TJMOHO. But if the leagues do adopt and support the rulings the umpires made on the field, I can support that too. My opinion is always subject to change with more information.

[dileonardoja]

As umpires we always want to back other umpires, especially on judgment calls. But come on; u3 wasn't looking at the time the supposed touching occurred. He might have seen them get close together out of his peripheral vision but that was a horse crap call because he really didn't see the play. Confirmation bias and OOO in my book.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

As umpires we always want to back other umpires, especially on judgment calls. But come on; u3 wasn't looking at the time the supposed touching occurred. He might have seen them get close together out of his peripheral vision but that was a horse crap call because he really didn't see the play. Confirmation bias and OOO in my book.

In MLB, there's no such thing as an OOO. Even the tiniest rules violation in MLB is what it is. You can't be "overly officious".

That said, this was a horrible call... not because it was wrong (it was) - but because it was guessed at and not actually seen - and even the strongest backer of the blue has to admit he was NOT looking at the action in question when he made this call.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

In MLB, there's no such thing as an OOO.

Huh??? You can't be serious.

Even the tiniest rules violation in MLB is what it is. You can't be "overly officious".

Oh? I'll only say this: Bob Davidson, Angel Hernandez, Joe West...