Texas - ASU game 3

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I

You are referencing the wrong rule. The player is no longer a batter; therefore, any interference must be INtentional. It wasn't. Consequently, it was an incorrect call and incorrect ruling.

I'm willing to agree with you that it is the wrong call. I don't see INT here.

My point, however, was not that the call was right, but that the RULING - based on the assumption that the call is right - is the correct ruling. And the CALL is purely judgement. I will admit I see why you feel the rules state that interference on a throw by BR must be intentional to be called. I think you should also admit that the rules are not as clear as they should be regarding this.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think you should also admit that the rules are not as clear as they should be regarding this.

The rules of baseball across all codes are filled with ambiguities and confusion, but with respect to the play at hand, I don't believe it's as confusing as it appears.

Of course, I can just be confused.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

The rules of baseball across all codes are filled with ambiguities and confusion, but with respect to the play at hand, I don't believe it's as confusing as it appears.

Of course, I can just be confused.

So, which rule? You seem pretty adamant about this being a misapplication of rules. There is no such thing as a general misapplication only specific misapplications. So again, I ask which rule?

[txump81]

Lets go back to the video.

ESPN Go to 58:39

Notice after the throw. PU is pointing and signaling the out, then goes 4 fingers up, ball 4. Then points to 1B. The conference and brouhaha doesn't continue until after the conference with Garrido. And if you watch further, you can see the PU make a reference to INT and Ball 4.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by txump81

Lets go back to the video.

ESPN Go to 58:39

Notice after the throw. PU is pointing and signaling the out, then goes 4 fingers up, ball 4. Then points to 1B. The conference and brouhaha doesn't continue until after the conference with Garrido. And if you watch further, you can see the PU make a reference to INT and Ball 4.

I watched this a few more times, and all I can say is, "Wow." This was nothing short of a totally botched ruling. My original characterization of this being a 3rd trimester abortion stands.

[Durham]

This is freaking awesome. See what great conversations we can have when we use the rules reference. Well done all.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

So, which rule? You seem pretty adamant about this being a misapplication of rules. There is no such thing as a general misapplication only specific misapplications. So again, I ask which rule?

They misapplied the batter interference rule because this could not have been a batter's interference.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

They misapplied the batter interference rule because this could not have been a batter's interference.

OK, I understand your reluctance to give me the rule reference. So, why couldn't it have been batter's interference? When on a 3-2 pitch with the R1 moving can the batter no longer be guilty of interference and why? Remember the catcher can not wait on a close pitch or check swing for the umpire's judgment before throwing to second. So if the batter or batter/runner can not be guilty of interference, does that mean on every three-two pitch that is ball four in this situation has carte blanche on his actions around the plate as long as they are not overtly intentional (eg grabbing the catcher's arm)?

[txump81]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

OK, I understand your reluctance to give me the rule reference. So, why couldn't it have been batter's interference? When on a 3-2 pitch with the R1 moving can the batter no longer be guilty of interference and why? Remember the catcher can not wait on a close pitch or check swing for the umpire's judgment before throwing to second. So if the batter or batter/runner can not be guilty of interference, does that mean on every three-two pitch that is ball four in this situation has carte blanche on his actions around the plate as long as they are not overtly intentional (eg grabbing the catcher's arm)?

Look at the other side of the argument as well. If you're going to give the catcher the BI here, why wouldn't a coach have the catcher make that errant throw everytime and get the out?

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by txump81

Look at the other side of the argument as well. If you're going to give the catcher the BI here, why wouldn't a coach have the catcher make that errant throw everytime and get the out?

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

So, why couldn't it have been batter's interference?

Because he's no longer a batter. The instant ball four crossed the plate, he's a batter-runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

They misapplied the batter interference rule because this could not have been a batter's interference.

But no one official has ever said they applied the batter interference rule. In fact, the only published report I've seen that mentions a rule mentions rule 2.50.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But no one official has ever said they applied the batter interference rule. In fact, the only published report I've seen that mentions a rule mentions rule 2.50.

It is clear from the play that the PU wasn't utilizing 2.50; rather, he instinctively ruled batter's interference, which it was not. Heck, after realizing it was ball 4--he acknowledged as much--he didn't even follow through with the typical delayed dead ball penalty. Only after Augie complained did he get together with the crew and pull this incorrect ruling out of thin air.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by UMP25

It is clear from the play that the PU wasn't utilizing 2.50; rather, he instinctively ruled batter's interference, which it was not. Heck, after realizing it was ball 4--he acknowledged as much--he didn't even follow through with the typical delayed dead ball penalty. Only after Augie complained did he get together with the crew and pull this incorrect ruling out of thin air.

Now that's funny