3B Coach Interference Ends Game

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Is it possible that the "push" signal is a mechanic?

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.

[johnnyg08]

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.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but what is the mechanic for that?

Point and say "that's interference" I suppose?

[johnnyg08]

Here's a post from another forum on the mechanic. Can anybody say with certainty or any other AO that this would be wrong?

The "push sign" is a standard mechanic that umpires will use to convey the coach's interference. It not unlike the safe off the bag mechanic or the out of the baseline mechanic. It is just a signal to communicate to everybody watching why he made the call.

[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.

[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.