|
|||
"Originally posted by PeteBooth
If I'm working with a familiar partner, and HE / SHE didn't call interference on this play, I would NOT have called it because I would trust THEIR judgement. I would ask them about the play during the POST game." So, are you saying: "I saw interference; but, I will not call it because my partner was right on top of the situation and they did not call anything?!?!?!?"
__________________
"Enjoy the moment....." |
|
|||
First of all to Mr Time C: Oxymoron? Ummm yeah for 12 yr olds, it was top caliber ball. It is a tournament for travel ball teams. Which means every single kid on the team is an all-star type player form his regular team. Plus it was a 12yo maj as opposed to 12 yo AAA, these kids are good. They are well coached and know the game. They can pick up the curve as it comes in and adjust accordingly. They can fight off the O-2 pitch and foul it off. They can reach out and poke the pitch to right field. ETC ETC ETC Its good to work these games as the games move quick, and they are crisp.
--Yes I agree, there is a BIG difference between not seeing the play and NOT seeing interference. --As I mentioned in one of my posts, in all the talk with the coach, he never made mention of the interference itself, just how we called it. So that tells me he saw what I saw, and was pissed he didnt get away with one. --NO Pete, the coach wasnt upset IYO that the I made the call. He was upset that nothing was called orginally, then an interference call was made. He didnt make mention once about who made it. He wasnt upset that ANYONE didnt make the call. And your last statement is ridiculous, your way off track taking it to the nth degree. Yeah of course a rookie has to learn, but no one is making calls for someone else, or deferring at other times. I didnt MAKE the call for him. --My only intent in my ORIGINAL question was should I have said INTERFERENCE right away? Thats what I was asking. After a couple days now, and inquiring, I found out thats the case. And I think we all know, that even IF I have done so, due to the nature of those kind of calls, theres going to be an argument. --If my BU would have told me he saw the play and had nothing, then, no matter what I saw, HIS call would stand. --And Pete, again, I think your way too concerned with the ego thing,of course were not going to be chainging calls by our partners (and in this case no call was CHANGED)and all the other situations you described. Geez lets keep it simple, BU supposed to make the call, if he sees it,and has no interference Defensive coach still pitches fit, if he calls it offensive coach pitches fit. IF he doesnt see the play, the same above occurs, but in a different order. There is still going to be a hassle by someone, due to the nature of the call. Even if I make the original call as required, still, again, an argument. |
|
|||
Pete, being "right there" has nothing to do with this call if the BU's back is (or was) turned when the action occurs. Furthermore, to best judge what occurs you generally need to see what leads up to that action---something the BU hasn't seen when he immediately turns and there is a problem. For those reasons, I vehemently disagree with you that this would be the BU's call simply because the BU is "right there." The BU has not had time to see and perceive the action, and therefore the PU---who has seen it all---should jump on the call everytime the action occurs or has occurred behind the back of the BU.
Quote:
What's your answer Pete---and why? I suspect most know what I would do as PU. There are several situations where the BU can be "right there" (as you like to phrase it) and the PU should make the call. Examples of those will all include interference or obstruction calls where an umpire is not looking directly at the play in question while it's occurring---just as occurred in the plays we've discussed. The reason he's not looking at the play is that he has another responsibility typically related to watching the ball---such as staying out of the way of a batted ball, being responsible for a call on a batted ball elsewhere (i.e. making a call on a flyball), or merely watching a pitcher's pickoff move. Interference and obstruction are not calls that are designated to either official, and therefore, the umpire seeing the infraction may and should call it with one exception. That exception being when another official is closer to the play,AND that other official is looking directly at the play as it occurs, AND he has had the oppotunity to see and weigh all factors of that play such that his "no call" is, indeed, his decision of what occurred. This leads us to your next statement, Pete............. Quote:
Now you add: Quote:
The PU should not override a BU's no-call when he's certain that the BU saw the entire play and decided not to call it. Let's take this play:
Now, Pete, even if in the mind of the PU this was a flagrant and obvious obstruction of R1, the PU should not impose himself in R1's call. Why? Because R1 had the opportunity to see all factors related to that play. Thus, his no-call was, in fact, his decision that obstruction did not occur. Therefore, in opposition to your above statement, I feel it is terribly wrong for a PU to come into a call where the BU has had full opporunity to see all the action, and for the PU to call an infraction when the BU has not. The real question is did the BU see the play or didnt he. Unless proven that he did, assume that he did not when the play has occurred behind him. The PU must make this decision because he is the one not only seeing the action of the play occurring, but the timing of the BU turning with the ball. As the PU gains experience, hell better know what opportunity his BU has or has not had to see that play. We view things very differently, Pete. It's not the BU's proximity to the play (as you seem to think), but rather his opportunity to have seen all the action that was occurring. In the case of the PU's call at 2B on the FPSR, your view is a textbook view but not a realistic view of what occurs among trained officials. There is more to understanding the game of baseball than merely reading the words in the books............ Freix |
|
|||
re: "You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you:"
A. = #5 !!!!!
__________________
"Enjoy the moment....." |
|
|||
Originally posted by Bfair
You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you: You are comparing Apples / Oranges. One can always make a scenario to fit their argument. In the aforementioned case, the BU's back is to the play, so of cource when the PU sees F6 grab R2 he /she is going to call it. We view things very differently, Pete. You are correct. The bottom line is : Follow the teachings of one's association. In all the clinics I've attended regarding 2 Person mechanics, the PU's responsibility on a DP is to look for the FPSR. Your association apparently is different. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth |
|
|||
Quote:
However, you seem to misunderstand that to mean that the BU should not make a call if he sees the infraction. So, Pete.......... you are the BU and there's a FPSR play in a Fed game, and because of the violation F6 does not even make a throw to 1B.
My association does not state that a BU should not make this call when he's typically 15-20 ft. away, looking right into the play as a FPSR violation occurs, and sees the violation before any throw to 1B is underway. If BU makes that call, he need not even make a call at 1B (no need to turn with the ball should there be a throw) since the FPSR call kills the play. So, Pete, while the plate ump can make this call from 100 ft. away, it can still be made by the base ump who sees it from 20 ft. away. In fact, the offensive coach will provide far less grief when the base ump staring directly into the play makes the call vs. the plate ump making the call. Freix |
|
|||
Quote:
Illegally interfering with the pivot man on a double play..... Freix |
|
|||
Yeah, I have done NFHS games for 5 years now and have never heard it called that. Has always been just referred to as interference in all of our meetings or just refered to as the slide rule. Just never heard that acronym before.
|
|
|||
It has been said in this thread before, and I'll say it again..."Get the call right."
In both cases, interference & obstruction, bang the call immediately. That's called preventive umpiring. You're preventing both teams from burning the dugouts down! If you've got interferance on the bases, you're the plate guy, and your partner does not see it, call it immediately. Just because your partner misses the play, does not change the fact that there was interferance. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|