Texas - ASU game 3

[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.

[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.

[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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Exactly the same as the play he's referencing. R1 had not reached 2nd yet when F2 made that throw either. EXACTLY the same scenario.

Sorry, no it's not.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Seriously?

That's putting it mildly.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umptts43

now that's funny

+1

[UMP25]

But true.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

But true.

Oh wise one, please enlighten us. Explain the use of the "typical delayed ball penalty" regarding interference by a BR and which rule you're referring to. My book says, "Effect: The ball is dead..."