Twins @ Tigers - interference call

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Just for educational purposes, if I was one of the other umpires in this scenario, what should I do?
a) absolutely nothing
b) absolutely nothing unless asked by U2
c) stroll over and kindly say "you know, he was on the bag so he's not out unless it's intentional".
d) other

A, B and, D if it means doing A.

[JJ]

This is a rule interp, and is protestable. If I were one of the other umpires I would flat out volunteer information. You better get this one right or someone will have to arrange schedules to complete the game at a later date...

JJ

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

A, B and, D if it means doing A.

I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I wonder if they think the call was bad because it shouldn't have been interference in the first place or if they should have also called the batter out if it was interference?

Again, I still think that U2's "circle-around" mechanic that he gave after ruling the out was an indication that he felt R2 could have moved around to avoid hindering the fielder as much as possible, while still maintaining contact with the base.

What he did not see was R2 looking up for the ball or looking at the fielder to make a reasonable attempt at avoiding him. Instead, he saw R2 turn his back to the fielder, and that may have given him enough cause to judge intent.

That's my speculation.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

Maybe, if I was crew chief but from what I saw of the video he didn't ask for help and he didnt have to toss the coach either. Which is unusal for that coach. I think this is one of those times that even Ozzy would say, "We don't need no stinking conference".

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

What do you mean by "when noted"?

If you're the crew chief, and you know for a fact that one of your partners has blown a rule interpretation, are you saying you must do something even if that partner didn't ask for help?

I know that in certain amateur rule sets, umpires are required to take whatever action necessary to prevent a protest. But I didn't think the same requirement existed in pro ball. Per OBR 9.02(b), it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the offended manager to initiate the discussion through an appeal.

Or am I wrong?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What do you mean by "when noted"?

Well, obviously you can't point it out if you didn't catch it.

If you're the crew chief, and you know for a fact that one of your partners has blown a rule interpretation, are you saying you must do something even if that partner didn't ask for help?

Absolutely.

I know that in certain amateur rule sets, umpires are required to take whatever action necessary to prevent a protest. But I didn't think the same requirement existed in pro ball. Per OBR 9.02(b), it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the offended manager to initiate the discussion through an appeal.

Or am I wrong?

No, umpires should prevent protestable situations where possible. 9.02 doesn't prevent the umpires from fixing it on their own ... it describes what the manager should do if he has a protest.

[bob jenkins]

As a general guideline:

1) If it's pure judgment -- leave it alone

2) If it's judgment, but you have additional information (tag, when partner was looking at force, or a ball on the ground) -- use some signal (I just look at him) to let your partner know you have something

3) If it's a rule -- get together

Now, you might not know for sure -- if a fly ball is dropped, did your partner jusdge it to be accidental (item 1), forget that there was a runner on with less than two outs (item 2), or not know that it's a violation to intentionally drop it (item 3)? So, there's some reading of the situation involved -- I would usually invite (but not initiate) a discussion by using the "signal" method here.

[johnnyg08]

Here's the mechanic:

1. Safe signal
2. "that's nothing, that's nothing"
3. play on.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Here's the mechanic:

1. Safe signal
2. "that's nothing, that's nothing"
3. play on.

The safe signal pretty sure denotes that nothing happened. "That's nothing" is never "something" that I've ever been taught, nor heard of in discussion.

[bob jenkins]

S.O.P

You should add it to your tool bag.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The safe signal pretty sure denotes that nothing happened. "That's nothing" is never "something" that I've ever been taught, nor heard of in discussion.

Something to consider.

[SAump]

F6 simply misread a fly ball. F6 should have camped out under the ball, not drift back at the last second and cause a collision with the base runner. Ump got involved with the rule book when he had no business ruling on the play. F6 does not have a right to the base, or a right to pass directly over a base when the base is already occupied.

Play reminds me of the Orioles shortstop who bowled over the runner after a stolen base earlier this year. You just can't go knocking them off the bag for an out because you lost your balance/momentum during the play. Another bad call.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by JJ

This is a rule interp, and is protestable. If I were one of the other umpires I would flat out volunteer information. You better get this one right or someone will have to arrange schedules to complete the game at a later date...

JJ

Not unless someone utters the words "I protest". You have no idea what his ruling is and therefore, should not be getting involved. He may have ruled something that you do not know what the call was.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

I hope it is after U2 comes for help or someone says "I protest".