The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 12:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,606
The rule was designed to penalize a coach (by declaring the runner out) who tried to give a runner a push toward a base or back to a base. It wasn't designed to punish a coach who tries to avoid a runner from plowing into him by putting his hands out to protect himself.

Marquez wasn't even looking at the coach at the moment the incidental contact occurred. IMO, Marquez blew the call by misapplying the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 12:23am
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
watch the clip closely from :20 to :23. Marquez was not "on top of it"; he wasn't even looking squarely at the "infraction" when the touch happened (assuming it did; it wasn't clear). It appeared to me he ruled in accordance with a preconceived notion of what was about to happen. His immediate strong call notwithstanding, he did not have a good look at the play. My experience with partners has been that immediate and strong calls are as much a function of ego as they are of certainty.

I'm not saying he was wrong; it's an umpire's judgment call. He at best appeared to exhibit poor judgment.

I was taught to make the call if (i.e., "physically assist" means) the contact "enhanced or inhibited" the runner's momentum in advancing or returning. That certainly didn't occur on this play.

Tie game, bottom of 9th, 0 outs, R3: batter hits fly ball over the head of drawn-in outfield and ball lands safely fair on the warning track. R3 "high-fives" 3b coach before trotting home. If a touch is inherently illegal, Marquez has an out on this play. I sure don't.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 12:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,606
Some here believe that a coach touching a runner constitutes a violation of the rule in question; it does not. A coach needs to be actually assisting a runner's advance or retreat. The 3B coach here clearly did not.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 05:12am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
If you touch the player you likely will get their attention. If there was contact this was a good call in my opinion. I do not have a dog in the fight, but can see how touching a player will assist them.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 05:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
My opinion was that There wasn't any physical assistance. 3B ump came in pointing at the coach and made a pushing motion to explain the call. There certainly wasn't a push involved. The other issue is the Michael Young had already thrown on the breaks and to me it looked like the contact was merely a result of Young stopping and turning back to third combined with the coach putting his hand out cause he was about to get steamrolled.

That said those are all opinions biased by my love of the Rangers. What I think we could argue that is more facually based is the number of articles with quotes attributed to umps, coaches, players, etc that have said some version of "no contact at all, that's the rule". We all know that isn't the rule. If in the argument that followed the play any umpire said anything to the effect of "all that matters is contact", one could argue very strongly that an appeal is in order.

As a Rangers fan, would I love to see the game completed from that point? Sure I would. Knowing they're 8 games up, the cost of flying the team back to Minnesota for potentially 1 out, and the attention it would call to the umpires who bust their hump and have already taken a ton of flack this season, do I want an appeal? Absolutely not. But it does highlight the critical element of most appeals...if they had said judgement call and left it at that all is well. Explain something beyond that, you have to know the wording of the rule not just the intent.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 07:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 685
Wow

Sorry, I believe it was a great call, as I stated before.

First, as I looked at the tape, the 3B umpire was looking at the play, how could he not make the call if he didn't see anything? You think he's making a call out of whole cloth here?

Second, in this case with all the yelling the 3B coach was doing to the runner, and the fact that it was still a wacker back at 3B, it seems rather obvious that even a small bit of contact would be helping the runner as per the rule. MLB guys get paid to make judgment calls and get them right; to me that is a great call by as great umpire.

Third, this is another proof that other than obvious misses like at the LLWS, replay is an awful idea; it only gives eyes a review of the play, not other things that give context to a judgment call like this.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 07:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
I had no INT on this play.

Ace
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 08:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 406
IMO, 3rd base coach backs away as the runner is approaching him. If there was contact (not obvious) it certainly did not assist the runner. The umpire is not looking at the coach, he is looking at the defensive player double-clutching and getting ready to throw the ball. His call was based on what he "saw" in his peripheral vision (his best guess of what hppened). If he really knows and believes there was an assist, good call. If he isn't sure or there really was not an assist, not a good call. I believe the latter applies.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 08:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bedford, Texas
Posts: 20
I dont see any abiguity here. "Physically assists" is clear language. In this case the 3B coach did not in any way physically assist the runner based on what I saw. There might have been contact, its hard to tell. It looks like a blown call all the way. Mis-application of a rule.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 08:38am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
The value of this play for us isn't whether U3 got it right or wrong - it's the fact that a bunch of us "got in the books". That's the beauty of baseball for those who are truly dedicated. We all can be better umpires because of this unusual play. We all know that while looking up one ruling in the books, we all see a lot more items that our brains flag.

JJ
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 08:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aurora CO
Posts: 145
I have a tough time ruling there is any form of assistance on this play.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Basic umpiring 101.

Unless you clearly see a violation, play ball. Don't insert yourself into the game.

He may have THOUGHT in his mind and be totally convinced that there was contact, (which is not the intent of the rule) but, it is also obvious that he was wrong.

Your right, this got people to read a rule and it also demonstrated how not to insert yourself into a game because you THOUGHT, you saw something.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 09:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
I read about the play here before seeing it on Baseball Tonight. After seeing it, I'm in the camp that would not call interference. The touch of the hands was so brief and incidental that I'd be hard-pressed to call that "an assist". It looked to me like the touch had absolutely no bearing on the runner's momentum, path, effort to stop or return to the base.

But I'll also say that the "degree" of any "assist" is at the discretion of the umpire observing it and I know that seeing things like this out on the field in "real time" can give an entirely different impression than what you get from multiple replays from the comfort of your couch.

Earlier this season, I did have the opportunity to end a game on this exact same call. Bottom of seventh (last inning), runner on first base representing the tieing run. Batter base hits to outfield, R1 goes to third.

R1's momentum carried him past third. On this one, the runner and the base coach made full-on body contact. The coach then grabbed the runner by the waist, spun him around and pushed him back toward the base.

Now that's an assist!

I banged the out- game over. This one was so obvious that the base coach didn't do anything other than hang his head and walk off the field.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 10:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
Watch U3 closely, he's not even seeing at the touch.

That's my take as well. If you watch the 2nd of the four replays in the clip. You will see that Marquez is looking at the ball when Young and the coach come close (or touch I don't know). That's an awfully tough call to make in that situation when you didn't really get a good look at it.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 06, 2010, 10:36am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
That's my take as well. If you watch the 2nd of the four replays in the clip. You will see that Marquez is looking at the ball when Young and the coach come close (or touch I don't know). That's an awfully tough call to make in that situation when you didn't really get a good look at it.
How can you say that he didn't get a good look at it?

Watch the video again, he got such a good look at it, he didn't even bother to watch the tag back at 3rd base because it didn't matter.

Have somebody run full tilt toward you, have the runner take a turn, reach out your hand and see how little of a touch you can do and assist him to slow down or return to the base. It doesn't take much to assist. It's judgment play...some of us would call it, some of us wouldn't...neither is right or wrong unless there's an interp somewhere that states otherwise favoring one opinion over another. I couldn't find one in MLBUM 2010...maybe there's one in an earlier version of MLBUM.

Instead of going back and forth, on who's right and wrong...let's search for an authoritative opinion.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA vs. Japan game ends on LBR violation TwoBits Softball 50 Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:11pm
4th Quarter ends tie game! T to coach? flsh224 Basketball 8 Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:02pm
Boys Varsity game ends 5-2 Rich Basketball 6 Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:12am
Triple Play Ends Game whiskers_ump Softball 0 Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:56pm
Grand Slam ends the game? TriggerMN Baseball 10 Tue May 20, 2003 12:33pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1