Twins @ Tigers - interference call

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Something to consider.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you used it, and for what? Wasn't it your state that had all the controversy over what I thought was an overkill of mechanics on what should have been the last out of the game?

I don't remember what the exact call was in the OP, but if they got two on it, they made the wrong call. I could be wrong, but wouldn't that call only pertain to FED rules.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you used it, and for what? Wasn't it your state that had all the controversy over what I thought was an overkill of mechanics on what should have been the last out of the game?

I don't remember what the exact call was in the OP, but if they got two on it, they made the wrong call. I could be wrong, but wouldn't that call only pertain to FED rules.

I don't use it often. I've used it on close no batter interference. I have used it on plays where people might think there is something and there's "nothing" it lets people see that I saw "it" and I have nothing.

Yes, our state had the weird play in the section finals. I would work with any of those umpires tomorrow w/o hesitation.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I don't use it often. I've used it on close no batter interference. I have used it on plays where people might think there is something and there's "nothing" it lets people see that I saw "it" and I have nothing.

Yes, our state had the weird play in the section finals. I would work with any of those umpires tomorrow w/o hesitation.

It wasn't overkill of mechanics.

(Why does this board chop the original quote in a thread?)

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Matt

It wasn't overkill of mechanics.

(Why does this board chop the original quote in a thread?)

Well, what was it them? The safe/out confused the the clueless batter, or did some some other umpire overstep his bounds, and changed the call because of the confusion that was created. Anyway, there was no reason for a no catch signal on the swinging strike. It was plain as day that the ball hit the dirt first. Thus the merry-go-round spins round and round.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I don't use it often. I've used it on close no batter interference. I have used it on plays where people might think there is something and there's "nothing" it lets people see that I saw "it" and I have nothing.

Yes, our state had the weird play in the section finals. I would work with any of those umpires tomorrow w/o hesitation.

I've always been under the impression that if you don't call interference, there wasn't interference. I just don't see the need to re-invent the wheel. Also on a side note, I've seen some post a quote from Bill Klem that states, "It ain't nothing until I call it." Think Ed Armbrister/Carlton Fisk in the 1975 World Series, but if Fisk doesn't rush his throw, he's would have have an easy double play.

I have never seen this mechanic at any level I've coached, played or watched. The only place I've heard this mentioned are on these boards. Just the way that I prefer to do things. If you want to use it, more power to ya.

BTW-I never mentioned anything who you should or shouldn't work with. That's your business, not mine.