Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.


To what rules are you referring? I have an NCAA Baseball Rule Book in front of me and do not see those rule numbers and the wording you cite.

Regardless, as I said, if this is not batter interference, which it's not, then the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike).

Was this B.I.? No
Was this an intentional interference? No

Clear conclusion: No penalty of an out should be or can be recorded.

If one is to argue that the rules aren't very clear on this (and I submit they actually are, for the most part), then an umpire can employ the notion of "common sense and fair play." This is something the Jaksa/Roder manual does when it discussed possible interference without a play. Here's an example from that manual:

Considering that R1 in the ASU-TX game wasn't trying to acquire second--he was awarded it on the batter's walk--nor was R1 trying to return to second after overrunning or oversliding it, a result similar to the J/R one might even be the way to go.

I agree. If I was to work the CWS, would that make me immune from erring in a post-season game? If I chimed in on a CWS play, does that mean it should end the discussion? Heck, we've seen MLB Umpires screw up and have called them on the carpet in this forum. Are we not permitted to do this because we're not MLB Umpires?

We're all human, from Little League to the Major Leagues. We all make mistakes, some minor, some major.

Well, except, of course, for the Regional Umpire alluded to above. ;)

He didn't "quickly" realize anything. He did signal 4 with his fingers, but he yelled (like he was pissed off about it, in fact) THAT's INTERFERENCE while pointing about 5 times at BR heading toward first ... all of this AFTER waiving the 4 fingers nearly immediately.

I've repeatedly asked for a rule citation to back that up... you won't provide one.

So if it's not batter interference it can't be interference by a batter-runner or runner? OK. I guess it's interference by the center fielder or some other defensive player. :rolleyes:

I cannot cite a rule when no interference occurred. My contention is that if one is going to claim there was interference, it would have to be by a batter-runner or runner (here the B-R). The closest one would be 7-11-f; however, that refers to a play at the plate. Considering that there was no play being made on R1 in the situation at hand, again, the batter could not have been interfering with anyone.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a winner!!!. You could not of said it better. Common sense goes out the window in trying to defend this STUPID CALL.

Very interesting idea. For this very reason it was a wrong call.

I have thought a lot about this issue in this thread. I joined this thread because this is a very nuanced play with lots of implications. I joined this thread because, I don't know the proper ruling in this case. I am trying to work through the issues with the rule book with peers. Much the same way peer reviewed research is done in academics. It's easy to be right when we don't allow our thoughts to be seen in the light of day. We can't be the emperor with no clothes.

Those who are disagreeing with the judgment on the call, that's fine. Those that are therefore implying that the umpire is in some ways incompetent, that's not fair.

Those that think, they know what Augie Garrido said to the plate umpire, you are only concluding what you think he may have said. Garrido did not come out right away. They were about to begin play again, before the round of discussions began.

While thinking about this post, I decided to look up this

Batter Becomes Base Runner
SECTION 2. The batter becomes a base runner:
b. Instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire;

Does this imply that the batter remains the batter until the umpire confirms the pitch is ball four? If so, he can be guilty of interference. If not, he cannot be guilty of unintentional interference.

Did the rule makers word 8-2-b for the eventuality of this play or do they mean as soon as the pitch passes the hitter out of the strike zone or something else.

I don't think common sense and fair play would allow us to allow hitters to run out in front of catchers who are trying to make throws to retire runners that the can't know the status of until after they have thrown the ball.

I'm think I know where I stand on this one, but I'm still not sure. That is why discussion of rulings is important. Referring to judgments as boneheaded or an abortion or whatever will not move us closer to truth. I know for sure I have never missed one from my couch or behind the fence.

I wouldn't call it stupid; rather, it's simply a mistake. We've all committed them.

Tony,

Well if you're going to try to have an intelligent conversation about this sitch instead of getting into pissing contests with other people....

Heck, why not?!

I happened to be watching the game when it happened. My initial reaction was WTF!?!? The TV coverage was abysmal and I was quite surprised that Esmay didn't make more of an argument.

I have read the relevant rules and the available interps, though NCAA-specific interps are rare.

Based on the rules, I believe the batter had become a runner before the action occurred which resulted in an infraction being called.

Therefore, I believe that, by rule, the umpire must have judged intentional interference in order to have a "rules supported" call of interference.

There is also the question of was there a "play" and is it proper to call an out for interference if there was no "play" to be interfered with. I lean to ward the camp that would say there was no "play" (because there was no runner in "jeopardy" at the time of throw), and, generally, unless there is an out to be had, the interference does not result in an out. (a la return toss interference).

However, I could see a case for calling an out if the offense were judged to have intentionally interfered in order to create an unintended advantage (e.g., force a bad throw to allow a runner to advance an extra base).

So, if the umpire were convinced that the batter-runner deliberately timed his initial advance to 1B to hinder the catcher, AND the catcher was, in fact, hindered, I suppose you could make a case for the call.

That's the best I can come up with for "making sense" of the call.

I do not believe I would have called what he did, but I've made mistaken calls myself, so I might be wrong.

JM

BTW, I couldn't tell from the video or any of the accounts what they did with the R1 (who might have ended up at 3B?). Does anyone know?

Since, the crew did ultimately rule interference, r1 was returned to first.

I have, Tony. Had to huddle and discuss it and then I changed my call.;)

Well, no. But I do find it interesting that he's one of the few who hasn't insisted he has the definitive answer and he hasn't put down any other poster or any other opinion.

Amazing.

Another interesting note on when the batter becomes a runner.

In OBR, the batter becomes a runner when Four “balls” have been called by the umpire

In NHFS, the batter becomes a runner when a fourth ball is called by the umpire 8-1-1 c

The waters muddy.

The scorekeeping for this play shows BI. The pitch sequence only goes up to ball 3. Wilson gets no BB. I don't know if they consulted with the umps but on unusual plays that might happen. Picture a close pitch which the batter thinks is B4. He's off and running and F2 comes up throwing. You call strike 2 and you have BI. Does the batter have to wait till you call ball 4 before he is legally a BR? NCAA implies this. I haven't checked the exact wording of the other codes yet.
Edited because I was doing it on an iPad.

Tony,

Where on earth did you get that notion?

JM

Whoops may bad JM. I missed that one. I thought so, did a search and missed it. Thanks for pointing that out. :(

That's his problem then. ;)

I don't really have any problems at the moment. Living a blessed life and just trying to remember to thank the big guy every day for it. :)

I don't doubt it, which is why it was tongue-in-cheek (if I didn't mention that, SOME idiot here would be throwing a hissy fit at the comment). ;)

Improper call
 

To continue to beat the dead horse. I read the NCAA rulebook. It says the batter becomes a runner the instant of ball four. Whereas the batter can be called for interference for actions intentional or unintentional that interfere with action around homeplate, the rules specifically state that a runner can only be called out for INTENTIONAL interference with a thrown ball. It could hardly be said that a runner merely shifting his weight toward first to take the base he was entitled to with the ball four is doing anything intentional to interfere with a throw from the catcher. Intentional means to perform an action that is not typical of a baseball play that displays a willful intent to get in the way of a throw or a thrown ball. For example, by NCAA rules, a popup slide by a runner going into directly into second on a straight line slide to break up a double play is allowed even if it results in contact and interferes with the keystone fielders throw. That is ruled a normal baseball action.

The walk indeed takes precedence over the "interference" because it immediately made the batter a runner and only the batter can be called for unintentional interference.

I recall a play where JR Towles of the Astros was attempting to make a throw to retire a runner attempting to steal third. The throw hit the batter's helmet and deflected into the dugout which allowed the runner to score. No interference was called.

The Towles play
 

The Towles play occurred on April 6 versus the Reds. The play is on MLB.tv highlights of the game. The runner on second was headed to third on a steal attempt. The right handed batter took the pitch and kept the bat over his shoulder. Towles came up throwing and his hand hit the bat as did the ball which caused the ball to be deflected into the third base dugout. The runner was awarded home and the announcers praised the batter for staying in the box. After reading this thread it is obvious the PU blew the call. The batter unintentionally interfered with the throw and should have been called out. The runner should have been sent back to second. Agreed?

MLB Rule 6.06 c
 

To answer my own question by Rule 6.06 c this is not a case of batter interference. The batter needs to step out of the batter"s box or make a specific motion to be called for BI

The NCAA rule
 

The NCAA rule (Rule 7 Section 11 f) says essentially the same thing although it adds the words "intentional or unintentional" not in the MLB rules

1) THe "towles play" has nothing to do with the superregional play.

2) It would be ruled the same in both codes as "nothing; play on"

Bob, I was using it as an example where a batter is not called for BI when his mere presence doing what is expected of him even though his presence altered the course of a play. I think a batter-runner who shifts his weight to first after he has been awarded the base on ball four cannot be called for an action that constitutes runner's interference particularly since that action has to be intentional. The contention that "interference takes precedence over the walk" is false. The PU made NO indication that he appealed to 1U on a check swing. I suppose it could be said that in such case the batter is in "limbo" like Schroedinger cat being in a quantum state between a retired batter who has been struck out and a batter-runner who has just walked. I think the rules need to be clarified about what takes precedence when a check swing call is pending. But, to be clear, there was no check swing appeal in the Texas-ASU game and the statement that interference took precedence over the walk is completely incorrect.

No it does not. 8-2-b "The batter becomes a base runner: instantly after fours balls have been called by the umpire." (emphasis added)

Thus an action on the part of the umpire must occur. I don't think it far fetched that on a border line pitch the catcher may throw and be interfered with before the umpire calls ball 4. Again, this play is not as black and white as we would like to think from a rule's perspective or from a common sense and fair play perspective.

Tony,

I disagree with your analysis. I believe once the umpire let's everyone know the pitch was a ball, it's "retroactive" to when it happened.

That's how all such things work in baseball.

Also, from the NCAA Rule 2:

"By definition", he's a batter-runner.

JM

I agree with your statements, Coach. Tony is being way too analytical and unnecessarily complex. Umpires all too often do that.

Well, I can't resist a comment. The pitch was obviously a ball and the PU gave no indication he was waiting for U1 to make a call on a check swing. In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway. If there wasn't time for the PU to call the pitch before the catcher's throw to second, then there certainly wasn't time for the catcher to ask for the appeal before making the throw.
Again, I think there needs to be a rules clarification on how a checked swing appeal affects the course of subsequent plays and what becomes "retroactive". Also, is a checked swing appeal subject to the same restriction as other appeals where they must be made before another play or pitch is made?

That's not always true.

Larry, I do not want to talk about this particular play. I am interested in the general behavior the player who begins this type of play, a 3-2 pitch with R1 running. When can the hitter head toward first base and not be guilty of interference? It doesn't seem right that he can be allowed to interfere F2's throw in such a way that it allows R2 to advance to third. Again, I do not wish to question the PU's judgment on this play.

That's one take. Another take is that plays like this 3-2 pitch R1 running on the pitch, create potential issues. It does not seem right in this situation to allow the player who started as the batter to do something that would cause him to be out for interference on any other count and have that action allow R1 to advance to third.

JM, I am trying to figure out exactly when he becomes the batter/runner. The rule book says umpire calls. So would you allow R1 to advance to third in this situation if the player who started as the hitter immediately ran through the plate "interfering" with F2's throw in such a way as to allow that advance. Somehow that doesn't seem right either.

Bob, thanks again :-). The appeal of a checked swing is indeed not the same as an appeal on the bases. Hence the PU may initiate the appeal on his own. Here is a good article that describes the proper umpiring mechanics of the checked swing appeal:
The Amateur Baseball Umpire Home Page

Again, all of this cries for a rules clarification along the lines of "infield fly if fair". There needs to be some signal or understanding that "batter has walked if ball" or "play goes on if appealed to be a strike". Any rulings on batter interference should be made retroactively to the final outcome of the appeal. Both the offense and defense should remain alert to the "limbo" status of their actions. For example, the runner attempting a steal of second who was called out on the throw should be trained to "hold the bag" until all final rulings are made as to whether it was a ball or strike. Calls of BI should be allowed to be overturned and let the outcome of the play stand "as is" if ball four made the batter a runner. That solution would be infinitely better than the mess that was made of the Texas-ASU game.

What you are perceiving as "not seeming right" is causing you to overanalyze and make this even more complex than it should be. For one thing, who ever said the batter did something that required an out be declared?

I'll leave you with this quote from one of our instructors at umpire school, a quote I still remember 22 1/2 years later:

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.

Hope everyone's having a great father's day. Just finished working a fill-in game and now time to enjoy the lovely dinner my lil girls have spent the afternoon getting ready for me. Hope each of you is having a similar day.

That sounds wonderful what your daughters did! Very nice. Happy Father's Day to all the dads here.

Tony, let me see if I can share with you my understanding of the rules that you are asking about. I'll start by saying that I am not talking about the play, because I wasn't there and I don't know what the rulings or judgments were.

I'll start with the definition of interference.

Interference
SECTION 50. The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who
interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder
attempting to make a play.

Now you were asking about when the batter becomes the BR. It is my understanding that he becomes the BR when the umpire calls ball 4. Now as umpires I believe that it is our first priority to judge the pitch. So in most causes we will make ball or strike known right away. Now if it is a 3-2 count and the batter takes off for first before we make our judgment known, one of two things usually will happen, we will call it a strike and the batter could be in jepordary of having unintentional BI called against him. It is my understanding that if we rule ball 4, then the BR that is moving towards first would be called for interference if he committed an intentional act that we ruled interference. However, the BR moving toward first that might unintentional hinder a throw in my mind at least would be like a train wreck situation, where as long as he is doing what he is suppose to do, going to first, I do not believe that by rule he could be guilty of unintentional interference.

Interference is a judgment call and intentional acts are always judgment, but to have unintentional interference be possible, in my mind at least, a member of the offense my hinder a legitimate attempt to retire a runner. And I do not believe that common sense and fair play dictate that a runner moving forward to an awarded base can be guilty of unintentional interference or a legitimate play can be made on a runner moving up on an award.

Some here say the rule book is confusing or lacks clarity and I do not believe that that is the case, but I also believe that the NCAA will let us all know in Jan what they think about the statement I just made.

As far as the play in question, I can find rules and justification to support the ruling on the field, but as to what happened, none of us knows and I am ok with that. I think that the discussion that has come up based on this play is awesome in the growth of all of us and I hope that one day when we are talking about one of my plays we remember that.

And for the record, I kicked a play at first in my regional. Glad my crew was there to help me out and glad I was able to learn from the experience.

Durham, I could not agree with you more. I think the simplest and fairest solution is to define Type B interference just as there is Type B obstruction that would come into play whenever there are 3 balls on the batter and most especially with a 3-2 count. Let the play go on and when the dust clears, settle up all the check swing calls and matters of intention and put the runners where common sense and the current rules say they should be. That is precisely how Type B obstruction is handled and that hasn't seemed to cause any heartburn.

It goes without saying.

So what is your solution, MRUMPIRE? More BS like the Texas-ASU fiasco?

Oh, my heavens, no. Your suggestion is absolutely, without question, the best ever. Why don't you take it to the NCAA MLB Rules Committees and get that changed right away. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

:rolleyes:

MRUMPIRE, I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Much better to let Auggie and the infallible PUngo there and codify the "interference supersedes the walk rule with lettered subsections that includes its enforcement even if the PU forgets the count and negates the rule that a runner has to do something INTENTIONAL to have interference called on him. Oh, and don't forget another subsection that says the PU should be able to strut his stuff and infallie judgment to be able to make an interference call BEFORE he decides whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Something like THAT would surely solve the problem for all time.

@Durham

I have come to the conclusion that the commons sense and fair play ruling would be to ignore the "interference," but return R1 to second. In essence, treat this interference similar to back swing interference in the sense that we are not going to get an out, but we will not allow runners to advance.

I had alluded to the same thing, Tony. As I mentioned earlier, Jaksa/Roder has some examples of what they term "interference without a play." In the situation at hand, this would mean no out recorded, but R1 is returned to second.

That would be similar to the AR where batter strikes out on D3K with first occpied, starts to run and inadvartantly contacts the ball. The batter is out, ball is dead, runners cannot advance (unless they were stealing on the pitch, iirc).

That seems like a good, fair, rule, but I think it's farther afield given the current rule wording. That is, I wouldn't be surprised to see this CHANGED for next year (or whenever the rules cycle is).

The next cycle is 2013-2014; however, the NCAA can change a ruling like this whenever it wants. IMHO, I think the whole batter interference and related rules are very unclear, even confusing, the way they're presently written. OBR, at least, is a bit clearer.

Tony,

I would allow the action, because if you change it or add a rule to change it, then you will end up effecting far more than you intend to. Example, a guy gets picked off at first and then is hit in the back while running to first and the ball goes into the outfield allowing R1 to get to 3rd. Technically he interfered with a throw, but I think we can agree that we are not going to call interference unless it was an intentional act. I could come up with coutless other examples, but I think you see my point. Like I said earlier, I think the rules are rather clear, but I could be wrong. And that would not be the first time today. :)

Anybody else see the play in the SC/Virginia game? R1 is stealing, the batter swings and misses and ends up out of the batter's box. The catcher had to alter his throw and drop down sidearm to find a slot to make his throw. That made his throw slice away from the bag. I think that was clearly a BI infraction but it was not called. Orel told us that it was not because the catcher did not initiate contact.

Yeah, and Robin Ventura the other day said a batter who squares to bunt has to pull his bat back in order to not have a strike called on him on the attempt.

Didn't you also post about this in the "terriffic call in CWS" thread? Please stop.

After so many pages of suspect information from members, I offer this from the NCAA Division I Baseball Game Officials Manual. It is issued to all Tournament umpires and they are expected to have it with them while in Omaha. From the section entitled: NCAA BASEBALL RULES COMMITTEE
FINAL RULES CHANGES – EFFECTIVE FOR 2011 AND 2012 SEASONS on
page 62:

Quote:

Rule 2-50: Add to (3) on 6-3b (3): If the catcher‘s initial throw retires the runner and the batter does not strike out, the batter is not out and the interference is disregarded. The ball remains live and other runners may advance. [add—If there is an attempt by the catcher to throw and the attempt is aborted due to an action by the offense, the ball becomes dead immediately, the batter is out and all runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch (TOP). Rationale: This change makes consistent the wording for 6-3b and 7-11f with 2-50.

It appears that this year's very best have some of these points of emphasis in mind while working.

I find the Effort and Professionalism section for rating this year's crew extremely telling to those who still believe preventive umpiring is acceptable in better baseball.

Quote:

Fraternization - Avoids excessive, casual, and/or unnecessary conversation with uniformed personnel or spectators, during the game

This is made easier by the fact that the crew is miked, but definetly something that bears watching. Finally, I have worked the Gerry Davis stance for a number of years now and have been comfortable seeing that ball. The current NCAA standards prohibit it. They only want the slot or modified slot used by tournament crew. I hate having to change but even if I never get a chance to shine in Omaha, I suspect that it is good advice and will adapt. The crews I've watched so far are really incredible at the plate.

So how does one explain the knee stance used by a guy the other day?

As stated in my original post, it is called the modified slot.

from the NCAA Plate Mechanics Ratings criteria:

Establishes locked in position on every pitch
Does not drift side to side or up and down with pitch
Does not flinch on swings or foul tips
Maintains proper spacing from catchers as not to become entangled if catcher moves quickly and unexpectedly
Eyes remain at horizontal level with ground and does not dip as game goes on.
Head at proper height to allow unobstructed view of entire plate
Works in the slot not over top of catcher or to the outside
Does not set in an unusually high or deep position that would draw attention or questioning of judgment

The slot is not the 'box', 'heel-toe' or 'straddle' stance. It is the area between the catcher and batter. They want your head in that space.

I know what the slot is. I went to umpiring school.

I've seen many umpires use a modified form, if that's what one can call it, of the GD stance insofar as one's legs and hands on knees set.

Congrats. Not sure why you asked that question then.

I was taught my stance by Gerry Davis, himself, about a decade ago. He had me lock in almost directly over the catcher's head. I'm 6'4" so it was a nice change from the knee I had been working for a few years prior. I only work a limited summer schedule, so I can experiment with the old heel toe slot for a while. I hope my quads can handle the change.

It was more of a rhetorical question because I had noticed that one PU was working the knee stance, which seems rarer and rarer these days.

Mike,

The guy working the plat in the NC - Vandy eliminiation game (Scott Erby) is using a Davis stance - with slot positioning.

Much like Gerry himself:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...vf0jm/610x.jpg

An article written by Scott Ehret on the Davis system in 2009 also talks about using slot positioning when using the Davis stance.

The Davis Stance

A lot of the guys in my association use the Davis stance because Gerry came and taught at an association clinic around 2004-2005 (before I had joined) and they all use slot alignment positioning.

I wonder if his thinking changed to slot vs. "over the catcher" after you learned it.

JM

All Gerry has to do is take his exposed hand off his knee and let it dangle so he doesn't end up with broken fingers on a foul ball, and he'll be using the stance and position I've used for more than twenty years.

Yes...as has been pointed out before, Gerry gave a name to a stance many umpires have used.

Could be. MLB umpires take things, adapt and find comfort in them. Erby looks like he did. I was taught it in 2002 and guys my size were shown the "over the catcher" mechanic. It's funny to think back to that. Tschida taught base work, largely at first and presented a small step call. By that I mean, line up in A and take just a small step or two only with an adjustment lean for angle for calls at first - some looking in, almost straight down the line! It looked strange, and was soon abandoned by most who took a few steps inside and locked in, the way most collegiate and professional umpires work it. Evolution.

The CWS guys look great this year.

Over the catcher = over the hitting zone = concussions.

PBUC is now teaching every single umpire, no matter the size, to get as far into the slot as possible.

The scissors was prohibited too. Guys were extending there necks and then taking fouls into their masks, compressing the spine. After a couple guys had to have life saving, career ending surgeries, it is no longer allowed. Evolution in umpiring on display.

What do they teach the married umpires?

Set up over the plate. Concussions will help you forget your wife whining to you about being on the road 6 months.

My thumb might be exposed a bit but fingers are not, and thumbe is a bit beside the shin guard, so it will take a direct to get me in the thumb. On the other hand, my pinky finger was broken about 8 years ago on an inside pitch with hand dangling, as you say, I since changed to GD.

I am sure Gerry will be in interested in your assessment:rolleyes:

Hand bones are less likely to be broken if the hand is dangling than if it is not. That's not to say they won't ever be, as your experience shows, but the probability is diminished.

As long as your hands are correctly positioned as recommended on every single pitch, you're correct--the fingers aren't very exposed. I have never seen an umpire using the Davis system who has met that standard

I have been struck by foul balls or uncaught pitches in areas I never imagined I could be, so even proper positioning of the hands is no guarantee.

I'm quite sure Gerry does what works for him, and is not interested in my assessment. I couldn't care less.