I believe Tony has made it clear that he is not speaking to a particular batter, but rather to a possible situation. Getting an understanding in advance is not such a bad idea. Discussion is how some of us arrive at understandings.

With a pitched ball that does not end up hitting the bat or the batter, five things can happen: 1) the PU judges the pitch out of the strike zone and calls the pitch a ball, 2) the PU judged the pitch to have crossed the strike zone and calls a strike 3) the batter swings and misses resulting in a strike,!4) the batter checks his swing in such fashion that the PU judges he should use his discretion to immediately ask for an "appeal" ruling from the appropriate BU, 5) the batter checks his swing in such fashion that the PU does not ask for the appeal but the defensive team does think it is worth an appeal.

When the runner is breaking for second, there typically isn't time to get all the appeals straightened out when the time difference between whether a fastball or a curveball was thrown makes the difference as to whether the baserunner will be safe or out. With three balls on the batter, all I'm asking is that in 4) and 5), the umps simply let the play go on and retroactively settle the checked swing and BI/RI issues after the dust settles.

Let's say the batter had to take a step over the plate to avoid getting hit in the head by ball four and thus "interfered" with the catcher's throw to second. Would you seriously entertain the thought of calling him out for interference??? Technically, he could be ruled out for BI if it was not ball four (intentional or unintentional while out of the batter's box) but on ball four? That would just not make sense.

Again, I am not interested in question the judgment of the plate umpire in this situation. There is an ambiguity inherent in this play, I am interested in this play as a member of a class of plays, not in this particular case. Is it possible that you are under analyzing this class of plays? BTW, I have yet to say what I think about this particular case. Do you see that the class of plays 3-2 pitch R1 moving creates interesting rules issues? If not, that's OK. I do think this class of plays creates interesting rules issues. So I am pursuing, for my own edification, this class of play not this case.

No, because I wouldn't rule interference if it were ball 3. OK, suppose we don't call interference because its ball four and if it were ball 3 we would have called interference, would we leave R1 at third if he advance there because of the "interference"?

A D1 umpire friend of mine who lives in southern Cal. (he used to live out here several years ago) called me this morning to talk about his yearly visit here next month. Among things we discussed was the play in question. My friend knows and has worked with a couple of the guys on the TX-ASU crew. One of my buddy's regular season partners, a Super Regional Umpire himself this year, spoke to the crew chief of this game in question. Here's what my friend Frank told me that his partner Bill had said:

• The plate umpire forgot the count when he made the call; he thought it was ball 3, which was why he called batter interference
• In the crew meeting, the crew chief said he didn't have interference on the play in the first place and wanted to let the play stand as it happened on the field
• The PU said there was no way he was going to reverse his interference call; he was sticking with it

The first point above tells me what I've been saying all along--the PU mistakenly ruled this batter interference, which it was not. Consequently, the call but more importantly the ruling was incorrect.

Thanks,
 

Ump25:

Thank you for using your sources to let us inside this odd play.

I also have a good friend that worked a Super Regional . . . when I finally got a hold of him he hadn't even heard about situation.

Thanks,

T

I wasn't trying to use "sources." I didn't go out of my way to learn this info. I simply related what this morning my friend Frank told me when he and one of his partners discussed this. The fact that your friend didn't hear about it doesn't change a thing. Frank and Bill heard about it, especially since Billy spoke to one of his colleagues, one of the umpires of that game.

UMP25, that makes complete sense and makes the PU's call exactly the third trimester abortion another poster said it was. This really needs to be brought up and truthfully explained in umpire training so it doesn't filter down as a precedent to lower levels. All I heard from the coaches was that they both just shrugged their shoulders and said, "the interference call takes precedence over the walk". (Can somebody cite the rulebook chapter and verse where it says that?).

I remember a play in 10-12 year old Little League where we had whatever high school kids who needed an extra buck got to umpire the games. Our batter hit a soft pop-up to the pitcher who made a good play diving for it and catching it in mid-air in his glove. But when he and his glove landed on the ground a split second later, the ball popped out. The PU empathically pumped a double pump out sign. I went out to say, "Blue, no way that is a catch, he has to keep control". The ump replied, "Nope, Coach, that's a catch. The ground can't cause a fumble". I told him he was officiating the wrong game and he told me another word and I was gone. I found the situation so blissfully idiotic that I just chuckled and went back to the dugout. But I can well imagine some rube who watched the Texas-ASU game will have the "interference takes precedence over the walk" BS stuck in his head and perpetuate this non-sense for years to come.

Unfortunately, none of these three points is true. My source is much closer to the issue than yours is.

Based on some other things Billy said that I didn't print here, I have no doubt it's true. Furthermore, the PU's reaction, a reaction captured on camera, bolsters the contention now revealed that he forgot the count and originally deemed this (albeit incorrectly) batter interference.

Well, this is why I did not want to discuss the particular play. The terrible thing is that a truly good umpire is going to have this hearsay passed around the country as if it were true.

Well, if you wouldn't have ruled BI on ball three then you would not have been in compliance with the rule on BI where it doesn't matter if it was intentional or unintentional if the batter moves out if the batter's box, even if the movement was to save his life. To further beat the horse, a runner has to show intentional interference - you know like when Reggie Jackson intentionally threw his hip into the throw between first and second in the World Series against the Dodgers yet the umps STILL didn't call it. I am not an ump, but common sense tells me to let the play stand as it turned out with R3 and R1 and one out. Otherwise, we will have coaches telling their catchers to make the throw to second the moment the walked batter-runner crosses in front of them to claim the bogus BI/RI call and make a travesty of the game.

In the Internet age we have, that's going to happen regardless, unfortunately. However, when we live our lives in a fishbowl as we umpires do, specifically those of us who work games that are televised, this is a price we pay when controversial plays occur.

There is do doubt about that. It's one thing to have the video out there. It's another thing to have hearsay passed around as truth.

In today's world, even the truth is often considered hearsay. Some people believe anything; some people believe nothing.