INT on a foul ball

[mbyron]

How do you like this?

[MD Longhorn]

Yet another complete crap call. Saw this last night. Some of these guys have lost all their skills, and would not move up in high school ball around here. I'm disgusted.

(And tbh... this was OBSTRUCTION if you think about it... at least until the ball dropped foul)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yet another complete crap call. Saw this last night. Some of these guys have lost all their skills, and would not move up in high school ball around here. I'm disgusted.

(And tbh... this was OBSTRUCTION if you think about it... at least until the ball dropped foul)

Obviously you cannot say that. These are the best guys in the world right? LOL!!!

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Obviously you cannot say that. These are the best guys in the world right? LOL!!!

Peace

Weren't you one of the guys who lambasted me a couple of years ago when I dared question football officials and their judgment?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Weren't you one of the guys who lambasted me a couple of years ago when I dared question football officials and their judgment?

My position has been consistent for years. I have never really been in love with MLB umpires from the days that 300 pound guys were the norm as umpires. And when guys cannot get very basic plays right and it does not seem that video review takes place at that level, I have issues with that when basic college or HS umpires would not make these kinds of errors. NFL officials are much better with fewer umpires and even with replay and do not have many of their plays overturned. If I recall my position with that football discussion is not atypical of other discussions when it comes to football, you did not know the rule that you were ranting about. Most of the time people complain about football officiating do not realize what the rule was. And I do not think I was alone in getting on you about your position. I am a big boy, if I am wrong about this then say so. But do not try to distort my position because you were ripped apart by many on the football site about your lack of knowledge. BTW, I think the replacement officials have been rather bad too in many cases and I know a few of them personally. Now what?

Peace

[DG]

From what I see:

Not an IFF

INT call is weak, INT is dead ball so second out should not happen

2nd out, which should have the first, except the INT call, which Off team could legit argue was after dead ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(And tbh... this was OBSTRUCTION if you think about it... at least until the ball dropped foul)

I suppose you could make a case for protecting F3, but it's a weak case. F2 had a better play on the ball.

Here's one of several errors made by the crew: if U1 calls R1 out for INT, why is he allowing play to develop? Why are we throwing the ball across the diamond? Isn't it DEAD on INT?

[ozzy6900]

I would have never ruled that F3 had an opportunity on this play. F1 & F2 are right there and one of them would be protected.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I would have never ruled that F3 had an opportunity on this play. F1 & F2 are right there and one of them would be protected.

Obviously because it ended up being a routine catch.

F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made. I would have ruled INT as well.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Obviously because it ended up being a routine catch.

F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made. I would have ruled INT as well.

Um ... based on your OWN WORDS, calling int would be wrong. If you protected F2 - then the collision between runner and F3 is obstruction, not interference. (PS - Mr. Rolleyes... routine or not has nothing to do with this - if you really think it does, please ask this at your next clinic. What matters is - which fielder does the UMPIRE think is going to make the play? That fielder is protected, and no one else.)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I would have never ruled that F3 had an opportunity on this play. F1 & F2 are right there and one of them would be protected.

I dunno, ozzy. F2 definitely had the harder play (and the fact that he didn't make it confirms that) caused by the fact that F3 couldn't get to the ball. I stopped the video the moment F3 contacted R1, and at that moment, all three fielders were about equidistant from the point where the ball fell. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that F3 would have called F2 (and F1, for that matter) off to make the catch had R1 not hindered him.

This was definitely a dumb move by R1. He's lollygagging back to first base while holding his arm up in the air. Interference should have been called right then and there, IMHO.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's one of several errors made by the crew: if U1 calls R1 out for INT, why is he allowing play to develop? Why are we throwing the ball across the diamond? Isn't it DEAD on INT?

I'm not so sure U1 made that call right away. It was only after the crew got together to discuss it did they make that determination.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm not so sure U1 made that call right away. It was only after the crew got together to discuss it did they make that determination.

He made the int call immediately (not seen in this video, but seen on others) - on this particular video, however, at about 12-13 seconds you can see he's already got a fist in the air before the ball is thrown to first.

In the other video, you can see him put his arm in the air at the point where they collide (looks more like and IFF signal to me) and he points several times at the runner, long before the ball came down.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I suppose you could make a case for protecting F3, but it's a weak case. F2 had a better play on the ball.

Here's one of several errors made by the crew: if U1 calls R1 out for INT, why is he allowing play to develop? Why are we throwing the ball across the diamond? Isn't it DEAD on INT?

We also have an IFF situation. We have to keep it live until we know the status of the ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

We also have an IFF situation. We have to keep it live until we know the status of the ball.

Egads ... two in the same thread. NO. Interference is a dead ball. The ball's status is DEAD.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Um ... based on your OWN WORDS, calling int would be wrong. If you protected F2 - then the collision between runner and F3 is obstruction, not interference. (PS - Mr. Rolleyes... routine or not has nothing to do with this - if you really think it does, please ask this at your next clinic. What matters is - which fielder does the UMPIRE think is going to make the play? That fielder is protected, and no one else.)

I don't know how you infer that. I would have protected F3 hence the INT.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Egads ... two in the same thread. NO. Interference is a dead ball. The ball's status is DEAD.

A] not all INT results in an immediate dead ball B] you keep the ball live until the status is determined for the IFF. If you kill it right away you may deprive the defense from completing the IFF ie catch, touching it fair. If the ball is fair, you would have two outs, if the ball is foul, you have one out and batter back up to bat.

Same is true for type A OBS on the batter runner. If the ball is a fly ball or fair/foul status is in question you keep it live until the play is over.