Jim Porter and I have had our disagreements regarding which official should make the call of interference when R2 runs into F6 fielding a batted ball. While I feel PU should since he sees the entire play developing and occurring, Jim has advocated that the BU should since he is "closest to the play." My argument to Jim's position is that frequently the BU only sees remnants of what has just occurred behind his back, and he may be left guessing at the needed decision.

An interesting situation occurred in an adult league playoff game this past week.
As PU I could easily follow the path of the ball off the bat and past the pitcher as it was slowing due to high grass (the field was playable but had not been cut due to recent heavy rains). I could also see that R2 going to 3B had clearly crossed the path of the ball, and he had also crossed the path that F6 needed to get to the ball from his starting location on the field.

This was going to be a tough play for F6, and he obviously needed to charge the ball hard to have any hopes of a play at any base. However, F6 didn't charge to field the ball. He altered his charging path to collide with R2 who, as stated, had already passed F6's needed path to the ball. The collision was obvious, and BU had turned with the ball passing him to easily see the action of the collision. I decided to allow the official "closest to the play" to make the call since I felt BU had seen all aspects of the play, but I ready to jump in if no call was made by him.

The BU made the call---but he called interference vs. obstruction.
At that point I realized that he hadn't seen that F6 took a path to cause the collision vs. to field the ball.

As a result of the obvious collision that all saw, there was no argument from the offense on what <u>appeared</u> to them to be the proper call. I felt it was too late for me to come into the call without appearing to be overruling the BU---so I said nothing. Needless to say, I wish I had followed my policy and jumped on the call despite the BU being "closer to the play."

IMO, <u>all the action</u> was easy to see and judge from behind the plate.
While I felt BU had witnessed the veering, he didn't.
In speaking with my partner (an excellent umpire) after the game I told him I felt he was "baited" into the interference vs. obstruction. He indicated that with the play right on top of him---ball passing him plus F6 charging---that perhaps he was TOO CLOSE to call those angles to know F6 had veered into R2. At this time I'd have to agree with him. He didn't blow the call---I did by not being first to jump on it having seen what I did.

So....having not made the call as PU............
Would you have done any differently?
Would you have approached BU to tell him that F6 veered into R2,
or would that be considered as imposing yourself into his call?
(Which, at the time, I thought I would be doing if I approached him).

The play went unchanged, but there's no doubt in my mind a quick thinking F6 came away the winner in this poker hand. I know for sure that if I see that action again that I'm ready to jump on the call. I'll risk the opposing calls if BU happens to come in with a different call at the same time. If needed, we can conference to discuss <u>all aspects of the play</u> before providing our explanations and final decision.

BTW, this ended up being a game won by F6's team driving in the winning run in the bottom of the 7th with 2 outs. I suspect the proper call would have likely had significant impact at that time of the game.

Your thoughts.............


Freix

Bait
 

I'm thinking that perhaps the true intent of your post is to bait Jim.

In your shoes, I would likely have overruled my partner. I would really have had to see the collision. I find it surprising the your partner would not have seen that the ball and the fielder were not at the same location... especially with this tall grass/slow progress situation.

If I felt the fielder altered his path with intention to collide (and if I saw the runner try to avoid this collision created by F6) I would have likely ruled dead ball, obstruction, awarded 3rd base, AND EJECTED F6.

Intentional collisions, and obstruction may be alright for players that get paid hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, but intentional collisions are never acceptable in a recreational or school sponsored game. These people are not compensated to exchange their health and physical well being for dollars. Intentional contact will never be tolerated in one of my games.

If the runner was knocked down in this play, I likely would have had F6 ejected before the runner could get up. And if the coach would have tried very emphatically to defend F6's actions, I probably would eject him also.

"In your shoes, I would likely have overruled my partner."

That's a NO-NO.

Bob

Valid point
 

Freix,

You do bring up a valid piont that the Base Umpire, stationed inside the diamond would likely not see the earliy movements of the infielders - in your situation, a lateral movement of F6 away from the ball to create a collision.

And I would say "Yes," it is at this time that you need to come to his rescue. Fans, players, and your partner would understand if you can matter-of-factly plead your case that the call needs to be changed because your partner did not see this initial motion - the fans and the players in the dugouts likely did see it. I don't believe it will take great effort to help your partner realize that this call needs to be gotten right and possibly changed.

An immediate dead ball, some pointing to location of the ball, location of the contact, pointing towards culprit and victim. Everyone is going to get the picture. There may be some screaming when the call is changed but if you don't get it right, I would guess that this kind of contact once allowed will lead to greater and more potentially severe contact in retaliation... and potential player injuries or fighting.

It is during the most difficult times that the players and fans really need to know that you are in charge and not just making ball and strike calls.
:)

Tony, the fact that F6 didn't charge directly toward the ball doesn't mean that he was significantly away from it. While only veering perhaps 5-6 feet from his direct line to the ball, that action was easy to judge from home plate whereas not as easy for BU to judge it---especially with all the other action of the play within close proximity to him. The judgment was not obvious from other angles of the field.

As for the adult league crowd and what they thought,
we could have polled both people to see what they felt........
but they were girlfriends that were reading different books at the time........ ;-)

My point is not to "bait" Jim Porter, but rather to support the position I advocated---that the PU has the best angle to witness <u>all the action</u> as the play develops and occurs. He sees it all whereas the BU only picks up partial information due to starting with his back to the fielders. My pupose in mentioning the past position Jim took was only to show that it's been discussed before and that there are differing viewpoints on who should take responsibility for that call. Moreso, that the PU should not avoid making call due to the mere fact that the BU is closer to the play. There are more factors than proximity to the play when determining whether or not to jump in and take the call. In this situation, the BU's proximity was actually detrimental to his ability to judge the play.

This was a situation where I felt the BU, who started with his back turned to the play, had the opportunity to react to the ball, see the action, and time to comprehend it for the proper call. <u>It was my mistake in expecting that</u> when, indeed, it was a very simple call to make from behind the plate where the play was obvious to see and judge.

While this bait play is hardly an everyday event, it still supports why the PU should jump on the runner interference call in a 2-man system.


Freix

I would have to agree Bfair. The PU has the look of the whole play and should make the call. I have done many times with only mild friction from coaches.

It could be ...
 

that the base umpire does see and can make the call; however, I have seen this missed so many times by the BU when I was quite sure that PU did see an infraction and failed to make a call.

So I think PU should give BU a chance; however, if BU does not see anything which is very likely then PU can call time and make a ruling based on what he saw.

If I were PU I would call time and conference with BU just to make sure that he did not see anything and then it also would look a lot better to the coaches etc.,

I saw HS playoff game last year that this call was missed and it cost the home team a run. This was with a three man crew, so it could happen then also.

Thanks
David

I called it in a HS play-off that ended the game. The BU had no clue and I stepped up and made the call. I was not a popular ump that day. If you read Bfair's earlier post he did exactly what you said and the BU smoked it because he only saw half of it. If you have it then call it. Don't wait for a situation to blow up in your face.

Re: It could be ...
 

In this situation of the baited interference I did just as you said, David. I waited, anticipating that BU would make the call since the contact was obvious---and to me it was obvious that F6 made no attempt at the ball. However, BU rang the interference instead of the obstruction.

What do you do now?
Do you impose yourself into BU's call?
I didn't think that was right.
He already made HIS judgment call....

That's why, in retrospect, I wish I would have jumped on the call initially to assure the person seeing ALL THE PLAY made the call. I blew my chance when I had it because I didn't use it.


Freix

Geez, Steve, at least get my position right. I never said anything about, "closest to the play." I said that when a play occurs right in front of the base umpire's nose, the plate umpire has no business making that call. And, I'm right.

Like Bob said, David, that's a NO-NO. BU may actually have seen it and chosen to ignore it by making no call. You shouldn't overrule that decision.

If your BU has made a call then you can't intervene without being asked. You have to let it ride. In the subject situation, IF the offensive coach made a complaint you could surreptitiously let your partner know that you <i>may</i> have seen something that he didn't. IF your partner chooses to ask you what you saw, THEN you can toss in your $0.02c but not before.

Our crews have a simple signal - arms folded across the chest - to let our partners know when we have something to offer on a contentious call. It's then up to the umpire making that call to ask for his partner's input, IF he feels he needs it, AND to decide whether or not to change his call. Using 9.04(c) can get very murky when running only 2-man mechanics - it's more designed for 3 or 4-man systems where the differing calls are made by umpires other than the UIC. The UIC is ALMOST ALWAYS going to believe that <i>he</i> had the better view in a 2-man crew, whether or not he truly did.

Cheers

I'd be extremely annoyed if I made a call (or decided to pass on a call -- and I try to give a safe signal when there's no call) and the plate umpire 120 feet away decides he doesn't like what I called and illegally overrules me.

The only call like this I've ever made as the plate umpire is an obstruction on a steal of third. However, in that play, the base umpire isn't watching R2 after his quick glance back over his right shoulder at the time of pitch. It's totally appropriate to be making that call. On the ground ball, at the time of contact, the BU is looking right at the play and the plate umpire has no business getting involved unless, as has been pointed out, the base umpire asks for help.

Why don't we have the base umpire simply rule on all check swings without being asked, too?

Rich

Sometimes, an infielder will run "around" the ball to get a better angle on fielding it and throwing to first.

Apparently, that's what the offense saw.

I don't think I was very clear
 

I must have been too vague. I agree that PU should not "jump in" to something that he has no business.

But, in the case of the missed call, (usually this is with BU in C and the play is behind him) Now it might not ever happen to you or I but it does happen a lot simply because I have seen it several times in the last few years missed by veteran crews.

In that situation, I'm not calling anything, but I know in that situation the coach is going to be complaining and then BU and PU can get together on what they saw.

Surely, PU never needs to make a call out of thin air, but when the opportunity exists to make the call correct then I think we have an obligation to make sure we get it right.

In the play I saw the runner was obstructed and tehn thrown out at home on a play at the plate. Cost them a run and they ended up losing by one run in state championship game.

Simply a bad call with three veteran umpires.

And I didn't know the umpires, but I'm sure that PU must have seen the obstruction.

That's what I meant to say.

Thanks
David

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Sometimes, an infielder will run "around" the ball to get a better angle on fielding it and throwing to first. Apparently, that's what the offense saw.

Bob, fielders typically loop "around" a ball by staying back and moving sideways (to assure they can get to the ball before it leaves the infield), and then they start to charge it to cut the distance once they are certain they'll be able to get to the ball. They don't usually loop "around" the ball by running forward and then sideways toward the ball.

While I understand what you are saying, Bob, I assure you that was not the case here. The fielder did not "loop." Rather, <u>he went directly toward the ball, but then he angled slightly into the runner</u> who had already crossed the path of the ball. From where the collision occurred, F6 would have had to make a hard left to get to the ball, although only about 5-6 ft to his left side and only slightly in front of him. The collision, although not violent, was considerable with the fielders falling over each other. I think it was the obviousness of the collision combined with the knowledge that the fielder is supposed to have right-of-way on a batted ball that kept the squelches down.

Still, you bring up a good point.
Sometimes fielders do make a slight loop, however, I'm not protecting a fielder who <u>chooses</u> to loop into the running path of the runner when the more appropriate route to take ot field the ball was directly to the ball. After all, I suspect the runner knew he had crossed the path of the ball, and he also knew that the fielder was playing well behind the line. Just how far should the runner have to avoid the fielder if the fielder chooses to loop into a collision path with the runner vs. moving directly to field the ball?

With R3 only, would you call interference if F5, who was playing behind the base, charged forward to contact R3 a step in front of 3B when the batted ball was obviously a soft, humped back liner reasonably beyond 3B in fair territory---and obviously F5's catch to make? Certainly F5 could claim he was interfered with in his attempt to field the ball. IMO, the fielder needs to take a reasonable path to field that batted ball, and he can't intentionally attempt to run into the runner for the purpose of drawing the interference call if taking an unreasonable path to field the ball.

The fielder has the right to field the ball, but that shouldn't mean that he's provided a "halo" around himself when he is not moving directly to the ball. It was obvious from the PU position that the fielder's primary effort WAS NOT to field this batted ball, but was to cause a collision. While I thought the BU also had time to recognize that, I was wrong. The BU had his back to the action too long before turning with the ball. That's certainly not the BU's fault, and it's certainly not a reason for PU not to make the proper call when he sees it.

Bottom line, when the BU starts with his back to the action of the players involved, there is really no way to know exactly what he did and didn't see after he turns. PU should jump on interference when he feels it has occurred and when his partner has had his back to ANY of the action associated with the play.

Hmmmm......isn't that really supported by the concept of angle over distance?


Freix

It's about safety...
 

In many situations, one umpire will THINK they have seen something better than the other ump. Having only umped alone (and every once in a while I get another ump), I have never had the privelege of many eyes and angles on plays. However, it makes me familiar with the situation.

As we all know, in any <i>efficient</i> multiple-umpire crew, all the members need to have signals to communicate a multitude of things. A few that come into play in this situation involve getting help from another ump.

Even though the BU starts with his back to the play, the play develops on top of him, and it is <i>his</i> call to make <u>initially</u>. If the PU sees something, but the BU does not ask for help, either verbally or with signals, stay out of it. Going over the head of another umpire, or appearing to do so, opens the whole crew up to a world of nightmares from the coaches, players, and fans that need to be avoided for the game to run smoothly.

But, this play had to do with safety, and malicious intent. As DownTownTonyBrown hit home on (excuse the pun), intentional collisions have no place in any non-proffesional ball. In this instance, a signal for an umpire conference needs to be made by the PU. When play has seized, and the BU sees the signal, a conference can be had. The play will be discussed, with both points of views. The BU is in charge of this conference, and the decision, along with post-conference actions are his job. If the umpires agree to change the call, the runners are awarded the bases that the umpires feel they would have reached, and F6 is ejected. But, this is a controversial call, and a fuming coach needs to be dealt with some leeway.

That is just my opinion on how a play of THAT nature could be ruled. Those actions are not appropriate for a non-pro game, and call for some non-conventional methods of ruling the play. It's unfortunate that so many of us hold a game high enough to warrant such behavior.

Re: I don't think I was very clear
 

I guess you are referring to Rich's OBSTRUCTION "off the ball" situation, and in that case I would certainly agree - if the infraction is "missed" because BU's back is legitimately to the play, then PU has to make that call if he can.

But the situation that started this thread was INTERFERENCE on a <u>ground ball to the infield</u>. Given that BU's are supposed to keep their chest to the ball, it would be a highly unusual circumstance that allowed an action leading to INTERFERENCE to take place that BU "missed" because he was concentrating on following the path of the ball.

Otherwise I entirely agree with your philosophical approach to getting it right. ;)

Cheers, mate.

Re: It's about safety...
 

While I applaud your attitude to safety, particularly for Junior ball, I don't see how the original situation could give rise to a judgement of "malicious intent". As I read the play presented, the following circumstances existed:<ol><li>The ball was batted,<li>the fielder took an unusual course to intercept the ball, and<li>the ball, fielder and runner all arrived together at the same point.</ol>Unless I have misunderstood the situation, I'd normally rule that as INTERFERENCE under OBR 7.08(b) and 7.09(L). The only question, raised by the original poster, was whether or not to intervene in the BU's domain because there was some evidence of the fielder's INTENT to draw an interference call. The BU may have adjudged OBSTRUCTION, rather than INTERFERENCE, based on that 3rd party evidence of the fielder's INTENT.

Whatever the INTENT of the fielder to OBSTRUCT the runner, it is a fairly large jump to presume his deliberate act was also "malicious". I saw no suggestion of "malice" presented in the original post.

Cheers

Call is BU's responsibility
 

Larry makes a very valid point here. A point that I didn't make strongly enough in my posts. And it is really the original question/point that Freix was making... Whose responsibility is this call?

As a general rule of thumb, and I think it applies in this situation as well, THE FIRST CALL IN THE INFIELD BELONGS TO THE BASE UMPIRE unless that first call is at home plate.

The plate umpire calls for the conference with his partner and presents the information that he feels the BU didn't receive. BUT IT IS THE BASE UMPIRE'S decision to either include that information and perhaps changes his call, or not change his call. As Rich pointed out, we don't overrule each other. We umpires are a team and decisions are generally agreed upon - especially one like this where the BU has half of the play in front of him and half of it behind him.

When I said "come to the rescue of the BU," the above is what I meant: PU presents his information, BU does as he sees fit with it, BU makes the final call, BU enforces the appropriate penalties, PU goes back to the plate and puts the ball back into play.

Re: Re: It's about safety...
 

I think you misunderstood the play as it occurred, Warren.
<ol><LI>The ball was batted
<li>The fielder initiated his direct line toward the slow moving ball
<li>The runner crossed the path of ball and the path the fielder needed to get to the ball
<li>The fielder veered slightly toward the runner and slightly away from the ball in order to cause contact
<li>Although fielder, runner, and ball were all proximate, the ball was not "at the same point." The ball was perhaps 5-6ft to the left of F6 and perhaps 2-3 feet in front of the basepath ran by R2.
<li>While the ball was close enough to the play for BU to think F6 was in his normal path to field the ball, it was obvious from F6's slight change in his path that his intent was to cause the contact to draw the interference call rather than to continue his attempt to field the ball.</ol>
Because of the BU's proximity to the ball, his need to watch and avoid the ball as it rolled past him, and the relative proximity of the fielder and runner to the ball, he was unable to recognize the "veered" path of the fielder. After all, BU did not see the original location or path initiated by F6 as that was established while BU had his back to moving fielder. When you are in C position, are you always certain of the exact location of F6 at the beginning of a play?

While I felt BU had the opportunity to witness F6 make his "veer", he did not. While I "guessed" that BU had witnessed that veering action, I didn't need to do that. Interference is not a dedicated call; a call designated to any specific official. Instead of "guessing" that BU had witnessd the needed information, I should have made the call. Doing so would have eliminated the judgment of "guessing" what BU saw, and the call would have been judged purely on the aspects of the play itself. <b>Anytime BU has his back to an immediately occurring play, the PU is "guessing" at what the BU saw after he turned as opposed to what he missed while his back was turned. </b> Thus, you are leaving the correct call up to a "guess" rather than having certainty the action is being judged on all aspects of the play.

<b>If it's proper for PU to make a call for obstruction---as some have said---then why would it be improper to do for interference? </b> Both situations involve action relative to the decision that occurred while the BU had his back to the play despite BU's location being more proximate to the play.

<hr width=50%>
In this play, the PU had to "guess" on what action the BU did or did not see.
There is no reason to leave the proper decision to a "guess."
The PU is looking at the play throughout its duration, and there is no reason why PU should not make the call. The call is not designated as responsibility of the BU under any set of mechanics I've ever seen. If you are aware of any mechanics designating this call to the BU, then please cite those mechanics.


Freix

Call belongs to the BU..
 

I see where you are going with this, but I think you need to accept that the obstruction case is the exception rather than the rule. I don't see an exception when BU is <b><i>facing</i></b> the point of play, even though he may have "missed" some preliminary input.

I strongly disagree with your underlying assertion that "<i>Interference is not a dedicated call</i>". In fact the dedication of the call is clear and precise:<ul>OBR 9.04(b)

A field umpire may take any position on the playing field best suited to make impending decisions on the bases. Duties shall be to:<ol><li>Make all decisions on the bases except those specifically reserved to the umpire-in-chief;<li>Take concurrent jurisdiction with the umpire-in-chief in calling "Time", balks, illegal pitches, or defacement or discoloration of the ball by any player;</ol></ul>Interference is NOT a call specifically reserved to the umpire-in-chief, by your own admission, therefore that call normally belongs to the base umpire "<i>on the bases</i>", except at home base which is normally reserved to the plate umpire.

There is no argument that you probably had the better view of that play, BUT that is NOT your call to make. You can NEVER be sure what your partner saw until AFTER he has made his call, and by virtue of OBR 9.02(c) it is then too late for you to take the initiative and reverse the decision. Bottom line: That is NOT your call to make, right or wrong. You should NOT pre-empt your partner's calls on the bases simply because you suspect he may have missed something.

Your partner's back was NOT to the "play", or "attempted play", in your situation. He was facing the "play" when it was made. What he may or may not have seen was the preliminary action. By your own admission you weren't sure he had missed that action at the time of the call. OTOH, in the "off the ball" obstruction case you CAN be sure at the moment the obstruction occurred because your partner would obviously have his back to the action while following the ball. The clear distinction between INTERFERENCE and OBSTRUCTION is that only INTERFERENCE demands the <b><u>presence</u> of the ball in proximity</b>, and BU is entitled and required to be watching that. OBSTRUCTION, OTOH, usually requires the <b><u>absence</u> of the ball in proximity</b>; that's the difference.

The rules clearly PROHIBIT getting the call "right" IF that comes at the expense of "criticizing, seeking to reverse or interfering with another umpire's decision"(sic) [9.02(c)].

Hope this helps

Cheers

"OBR 9.04(b)"

"A field umpire may take any position on the playing field best suited to make impending decisions on the bases.

Duties shall be to:

1. Make all decisions on the bases except those specifically reserved to the umpire-in-chief;

2.Take concurrent jurisdiction with the umpire-in-chief in calling "Time", balks, illegal pitches, or defacement or discoloration of the ball by any player;

Interference is NOT a call specifically reserved to the umpire-in-chief, by your own admission, therefore that call normally belongs to the base umpire "on the bases", except at home base which is normally reserved to the plate umpire."

Warren, I could agree with you if you did'nt conveintlly add words into the statement to make your case favorble to your opinion. Also, if it had stated, Make all decisions on the bases. But, it DOES NOT state ""on the bases", except at home base which is normally reserved to the plate umpire."

The fact that mechanics are taught for the the official to be in the "C" position for this type of play, when the rules allow "A field umpire may take any position", causes one to believe that there is descrepancy between the rules and the practice of officiating by the rules.

I believe that this is the point here. The official is NOT always in the "position on the playing field best suited to make impending decisions on the bases."

Therefore as officials, it either becomes necessary that we review and adjust our mechanics to cover ALL situations, at ALL times or we do the next best thing and realize the deficiencies of some of our mechanics, and adjust accordingly.

Certainlly, having the PU rule on this type of play when the BU can't possibly do his job thorughly because of the position, "Umpiring Mechanics" have put him in, is not unreasonable.

What if you were to come out from the plate and rule interference right when I decided that I saw the entire play and ruled that there was NO interference?

Not every umpire is going to be happy with a plate umpire making a call on something he has already decided warranted NO call.

Rich

Your absolutely right Rich, this could be a problem.

By the same token, do I just let it go because it was supposedly your call but you did'nt see it.

I know a lot of this is theoretical in our discussions, but if we can't be in the right position, at the right time, then I would certainly would want my partner to take the lead.

We have'nt perfected this art of officiating yet, by virtue of the existence of this forum. Mabey we never will.
But were having fun trying.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I had manipulated a rule citation to suit my argument, did you? The last paragraph you cited was my personal argument and was clearly differentiated from my <u>indented</u> citation of OBR 9.04(b). I quoted OBR 9.04(b) entirely without alteration. You can check that for yourself at <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp">MLB.COM Official Baseball Rules Online</a>

Of course the rules are enforced by umpires choosing a system of mechanics to give them that best possible position. That doesn't change who has primary responsibility on the call UNLESS that is agreed as part of the system of mechanics. No system of mechanics that I know includes a statement that "<i>the UIC can usurp your responsibilities on the bases anytime he thinks you might have missed something</i>".

As I said, PU cannot KNOW for a fact that the BU "missed" anything until AFTER the BU has made his call. The Obstruction "off-the-ball" is an exception. Interference is usually NOT an exception because that can only occur with the ball in proximity, and the BU should be watching that.

I'm not saying don't use mechanics to overcome the shortcomings of the rules in a 2-man system. I AM saying don't use "<i>getting the call 'right'</i>" as an <b>excuse</b> for one umpire to usurp the authority of another anytime he feels like there may be a problem. The rules are very specific about that - see OBR 9.02(c).

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Sep 11th, 2003 at 05:21 PM]

"I AM saying don't use "getting the call 'right'" as an excuse for one umpire to usurp the authority of another anytime he feels like there may be a problem"

I agree.

Re: Call belongs to the BU..
 

Warren, your post seems to state that only the contact <u>with proximity</u> of the ball is "the play", and that the action of the fielder moving to field the approaching ball is irrelevant to and considered separate from (“preliminary”) the play. In this situation, because of BU's back being turned to the play, he was unable to witness the fielder veer into the runner. BU saw only the climax of the play---which was the collision. The veering action, was indeed, part of the play. In fact, the needless veering of the fielder into the runner <u>caused</u> the collision.

After your explanation, Warren, I'm just wondering what you would do as the PU in this situation:
<ul>Tie score in bottom of 9th with nobody out and bases loaded.
Infield is pulled in with R2 standing very near to F6.
The ball is hit as a soft, looping line drive toward F6, but R2 immediately and obviously pushes F6 causing him to stumble. F6 barely misses the catch as the ball lands and rolls to the outfield. In your judgment, F6 could have easily fielded the ball if not for the obvious push. The BU's back is turned to this action as he is watching the ball vs. the action occurring behind him.</ul>
In <u>YOUR</u> judgment:
<ol><li>Would you not consider this interference since the <b>"<U>presence</u> of the ball in proximity"</b>” to F6 at the time of the contact did not exist?
<li>Is this action part of “the play”, or is this “preliminary” action?
If not part of “the play”, how can you have interference without a play?</ol>
We apparently disagree again, Warren, in that I feel the fielder moving to field a batted ball is part of "the play" and not preliminary to it. After all, if the runner runs into the fielder moving to the ball, that is interference. Although the ball may not yet be proximate to his person, the fielder merely needs to be judged as the protected fielder.

In situations with BU in C position, his back is to a portion of the play. He cannot witness certain information pertinent to the play no differently than he cannot witness obstruction behind him when he's looking to the outfield for a needed call on a batted ball. In fact, Warren, isn’t that really what we are saying here---that the PU saw the act of the fielder veering into the runner while the BU with his back turnedto that action did not? Isn't that obstruction? Even you seem to agree that the PU can call obstruction if the BU’s back was turned to the play. So, would you agree that the PU should have called the obstruction here?

Warren, this passage is meant to provide authority to the base umpire; not to take it away from the PU.

In the situation I present here (with R2 pushing or tripping F6 behind the back of the BU), let's assume that the PU makes the call of interference---and not the BU. NOW, the offensive manager formally protests the call because, per 9.04(b), all decisions on the bases belong to BU.

<B>YOU are the protest committee, Warren, do you uphold the protest?</b>
Inquiring minds want to know.....………..
<ol><LI>Does rule 9.04(b) set the mechanics for the umpires---designating who can and cannot make a call when an infraction is witnessed?
<li>Are you going to replay this game from this point because the PU (not the BU) made the proper call, or do you expect the BU to call something he doesn't witness?
<li>With R2 and BU starting in C while watching BR’s high fly to leftfield, if the PU had called an obstruction on F3 as BR rounded 1B (BU's responsibility for the touch), would you uphold a protest if one occurred for that reason? The obstruction call seems to be one which you approve of PU making.</ol>

An umpire shouldn't call an infraction he doesn't see, and your partner can’t see it if he’s got his back to the action due to using proper mechanics. In such situations where one official sees an infraction and believes his partner had his back to pertinent information regarding that decision, the other official should jump on the call. With the BU in C position, that is frequently the case with R2 and F6, and the PU should be ready to make that call. Our mechanic manuals designate our responsibilities, and I've not seen a single mechanics manual designate obstruction, interference, or balks to any single official. Please lead me to one that does if you are familiar with any.


Freix

It was NOT YOUR CALL! Get over it!
 

Putting words in my mouth #1:<ol><li>I DID NOT say that only the contact with proximity of the ball is "the play". I DID say that interference could not usually occur without the ball in proximity. The degree of proximity is, of course, up to umpire judgement.<p><li>I DID NOT say that the action of the fielder moving to field the approaching ball was "irrelevant to and considered separate from ... the play". I DID say the action of YOUR fielder was "preliminary" to the play. Why? Because it was clearly NOT a part of the fielder's actual attempt to field the ball, <i><u>by your own admission</u></i>.</ol>
Putting words in my mouth #2:<ol><li>I DID NOT state or imply that the "veering" action was "not important" to ultimately judging whether the resulting contact was interference or obstruction. I DID say that it was NOT YOUR CALL to make as PU!</ol>Steve, you seem to want to call <i>everything</i> that <b><i>you</i> see</b> on the diamond, regardless of who else might have primary responsibility for the call according to the agreed system of mechanics you are using. You are relying on the ubiquitous "<i>getting the call 'right'</i>" admonition in order to justify usurping your partner's authority under the rules. That is specifically prohibited under rule 9.02(c). Live with it and move on.

What would I do as PU? I would wait to see what my partner called. If he made no call on the play, I would try to let him know that I could contribute vital information to his resolution of the furore that would surely follow. Of course the action, as described, constitutes interference IF the defensive act clearly hindered the fielder in his ability to make a play on the ball. As I said, proximity is a question of umpire judgement.

Since this is BU's call, he must be given the opportunity to make the call. I have my own responsibilities in that case - eg checking to see if R3 properly tagged up, and watching to see that the B-R was not impeded in his progress to 1st base.

Putting words in my mouth #3:<ol><li>I DID NOT say that the fielder moving to field a batted ball was not a part of the play. That was your misinterpretation.</ol>Your fielder was NOT moving <u>to field the batted ball</u>, by your own repeated admission. He was instead moving <u>to make contact with R2</u>. His "veering" action certainly WAS "preliminary" to his making a play on the ball. BTW, the "<i>point of the play</i>", which is the term that I actually used, is where the ball and fielder have come into proximity.

<ul><li>YES it was probably obstruction that you witnessed.<li>NO, it was not your call because <i><u>at the moment of contact</i></u> - ie the precise moment of obstruction - the BU was looking right at the incident.</ul>It was NOT YOUR CALL to make at the point contact actually occurred, because it was within the BU's view. If it wasn't then he couldn't have called the interference. Only the preliminary movement was hidden from the BU. The BU is entitled to make a call based on what HE saw. You are NOT entitled to call anything to do with the contact when that clearly happened within the BU's field of vision, regardless of any preliminary movement that brought the fielder to that point of contact.

Okay, then how about the corollary - OBR 9,04(a5):<ul>The umpire-in-chief shall stand behind the catcher. (Usually called the plate umpire). Duties shall be to: ...

(5)Make all decisions except those commonly reserved for the field umpires;</ul>Put that together with OBR 9.04(b1) and you get the same result - it was NOT YOUR CALL!

The whole protest argument is specious. We were discussing whether umpires should or should not usurp their partner's calls. It happens, but I doubt any coach would ever protest such an occurrence.

Is it "illegal" to poach your partner's calls? Taking OBR 9.04 literally, it probably is. Would anybody therefore suggest that umpires may not decide to follow a different system of mechanics than that dictated under OBR 9.04(a) and (b)? Of course not! If you and your partner agreed beforehand that all interference calls would be yours, then there is no argument. Would any BU agree to such mechanics being used? I seriously doubt it!

Steve, as the PU <i>YOU</i> are NOT the person best placed to make calls on the bases. That job generally falls to the BU because he IS that person. Yes, there are exceptions but there is also a clearly defined process for dealing with those exceptions - OBR 9.02(c) - and that process does NOT involve the PU <i>unilaterally</i> deciding that he had the better view and then poaching the BU's call! Whichever way you cut it, that is a NO-NO! (Seems like that's what was stated by another official way back at the beginning of this thread).

Hope this helps

Cheers

Warren, it’s difficult to debate with someone who denies what they’ve said, even though it’s still there in print.

You stated <font color=blue>“INTERFERENCE demands the <B><U>presence</u> of the ball in proximity</b>"</font color=blue>, but when I provided you an example to disprove that statement you then stated <font color=blue>“I DID say that interference could not usually occur without the ball in proximity.”</font color=blue> Warren, those statements have 2 different meanings here in the states. Perhaps you take them to mean the same, but you hadn’t said “could not usually occur”; you had said “demands.”

You separate the “preliminary action” from the contact---which you refer to as “the play.”
The fact that your partner had his back to that “preliminary action”---which is highly pertinent to “the play”---apparently means nothing to you. The fact that your partner will likely make a blown call <u>due to what he did not see while his back was turned</u> means nothing to you. After all, he saw “the play”---he was facing the contact when it occurred.

Still, you seem to agree that a PU should make an obstruction call to cover for his partner when his partner’s back is turned and BU is unable to witness the infraction. You apparently don’t feel that to be “illegal” or inappropriate in that situation despite your claims that the BU is responsible for calls on the bases. Yet here you draw the line by allowing your partner to make a decision absent of the needed, pertinent information to make the right call merely because he turned in time to see the contact. You know there is good possibility he is making a wrong call because of information he missed while his back was turned to the action.
I attempt not to put my partner in that situation no differently than I take the call of obstruction when his back is turned.

Warren, you then make the accusation:
<ul><font color=blue>Steve, you seem to want to call <I>everything</I> that <I><B>you</I> see</b> on the diamond, regardless of who else might have primary responsibility for the call according to the agreed system of mechanics you are using.</font color=blue></ul>
No, Warren, I don’t want to call everything on the diamond.
I don’t believe I’ve advocated that or implied it anywhere. If I have, please cite it.
I believe your statement was made for the pure purpose of being denigrating, and as your attempt to portray a false image not only of what we’ve been discussing, but my abilities as an umpire.
I believe we’ve included examples of “exceptions” in our discussions---my example of R2 pushing F6 when BU’s back is turned, and your example of an obstruction occurring when BU’s back is to the play. I also believe this play falls into the category of being an “exception” where the PU should make the call despite the BU being more proximate to the action <b>due to the fact that pertinent action occurred behind his back.</b> I find my philosophy as highly consistent.

We certainly agree PU should take the call on obstruction when the BU does not witness the infraction. While you state you wouldn’t make the call on R2 pushing F6 when you know BU didn’t see that action, I find that totally inconsistent with your willingness to call obstruction when the BU’s back is turned. You seem willing to approach your partner later with information he apparently didn’t have, but I’d suspect you’d also agree that is not in accordance with 9.02c. Thus, you’d be imposing yourself into his judgment. You’ve also indicated in previous threads that you’d not consider changing a call once a team appeals the judgment decision. Hmmmm, it appears if the team complained and our partner then sought your help, you’d think your partner to be violating the rules. Why would you put your partner into that situation? I see inconsistency in your applications of the rules---especially in relation to your other previously stated beliefs and philosophies.

This call regarding R2 and F6 is moreso the responsibility of the PU vs. the BU when the PU is uncertain in knowing if the BU had his back turned to all the pertinent action. It’s a known fact that BU had his back to at least a portion of the play. Too often the BU is left with only remnants of the action (the contact) in which to make his judgment. He has not witnessed your so called “preliminary” action pertinent to the proper decision.
The PU saw it all………….

<hr width=50%>
I initiated this thread to show an example of where I knew my partner’s back had been to the action, and where there was good possibility that he missed the pertinent information to make the right call. Although I “guessed” he had turned in time to see that pertinent information---my “guess” was wrong. Still, my guess was not needed. I could have simply made that call myself and gotten the call right. I shouldn’t put my partner in the position of making a decision when he knowingly had his back turned to the play. If I’m to error, I will error on the side of aiding my partner and getting the call right.

In working 2 man mechanics, I firmly believe that when situations arise between R2 and F6, and when BU has had his back to that action, then the PU should take that call unless absolutely certain that the BU turned in time to witness all the action needed for the proper decision. The BU can’t possibly judge action occrring behind him which he didn’t see due to his use of proper 2 man mechanics.


Freix

Apologies to others for the length of this reply...
 

You continue to take my statements out of context to try to make it appear as though I have contradicted myself. Let me make it perfectly clear for you, hopefully for the last time:<ol><li>OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE cannot occur without the ball in proximity. Why? Because the fielder interferred with has to be in the act of making a play or attempting to make a play <u>on the ball</u>, whether batted or thrown.</ol>In my experience, debating issues with you usually ends up a bit like performing microsurgery on the text of my own posts. What I was denying was your misconstruction placed on my words. I hope that has now been clarified. Please try to understand what I'm saying from my perspective, rather than putting your own constructions on my words.

NO, I separate the "preliminary action" from the "play or attempted play" on the ball. You are the one who brought the word "contact" into the debate.

YES, the preliminary action IS "highly pertinent" to the play, but in your original example it was NOT a part of the fielder's legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball. You clearly said as much in your original scenario. When your fielder "veered" toward the runner he was simply NOT in the act of making a play on the batted ball! Instead he was probably in the act of moving to a place where he could obstruct the runner.

I don't consider your partner's call a "blown call". He just didn't have all of the available information at the time he had to make HIS call. You had information that would have helped him, but it was NOT YOUR CALL to make so you have to wait until he asks you for it. You may NOT legally usurp your partner's call. Why?<ol><li>When you observed the fielder "veering" toward the runner, he had as yet committed no offense.<p><li>When you observed the fielder make contact with the runner, the offense was probably obstruction based on 1 above BUT since the contact clearly occurred within your BU partner's field of vision it was NOT YOUR CALL to make - even though your partner didn't have all the information available.<p><li>When your partner correctly made his interference call, based on what HE saw of the play, your additional information became vitally important to getting the decision correct - but NOT before that point.</ol>You cannot have known what your partner would call until he actually called it, and you cannot VOLUNTEER your vital information until your partner has asked for it as 9.02(c) requires. Admit it, that is NOT YOUR CALL!

No, by your own admission you attempt to <b>prejudge</b> what your partner might call, assume he will call it incorrectly and then poach his call from him. You cannot KNOW that your partner didn't see the fielder's preliminary actions until he makes his call. Have some faith in your partner. He may even be a better umpire than you!

Sure. See the above statements, only you have attempted to dress it up by saying "<i>I attempt not to put my partner in that situation...</i>" as though poaching your partner's calls is somehow doing him a favor!

Your example of R2 pushing F6 when BU's back is turned was too imprecise to be useful. The play may or may not be interference based on umpire judgement as to the proximity of the ball and the push's presumed effect on the fielder's ability to field the ball. It is a judgement call that rightfully belongs to the BU! My response was to say nothing and wait until I'm asked for my input. That is the response that OBR 9.02(c) requires in BOTH of the interference examples you have provided.

OTOH, obstruction "off the ball" is a LIVE ball situation that has to be called by someone. Both umpires have equal jurisdiction and if your partner doesn't call it, or at least acknowledge the act with a call of "That's NOTHING", then you have to call it. That is NOT the same situation as the two interference cases presented at all! Why?<ol><li>With such INTERFERENCE the <u>proximity of the ball</u> is required AND the ball is immediately <b>dead</b> when the offense is acknowledged. Your BU partner should be watching that, as he follows the ball.<p><li>With such OBSTRUCTION the <u>absence of the ball</u> is required AND the ball remains <b>alive</b> when the offense is acknowledged. Your BU partner may NOT be watching that, as he follows the ball.</ol>IOW, the "off-the-ball" obstruction case allows you to advise everyone, including your partner, that you saw the offense without killing all subsequent play. You can't do that with interference.

Then you don't really understand the important differences between interference and obstruction. See above for a concise explanation.

Putting words in my mouth #4:<ol><li>I DID NOT say I would "approach" my partner with information he doesn't have. I DID say I would find a way of letting him know I had information that might help him. We do that here by means of an agreed signal that means "<i>I can help</i>", but it is only used AFTER the call has been made.<p><li>I DID NOT say that you couldn't "impose" yourself into your partner's judgement. I DID say you couldn't do so until <i>after</i> HE ASKS you!</ol>

Okay, here we go arguing OLD issues that you simply can't get over. Asking your partner what he saw on an INTERFERENCE vs OBSTRUCTION call is clearly NOT the same as getting help on a pulled foot AFTER you've already made the Safe/Out call! On any such interference the ball is DEAD. There is no subsequent action to be impacted. I didn't say getting the call "right" wasn't important. I did say there was a time and place for getting help, and some of the times you want to do that I consider entirely inappropriate, even "illegal" by the rule book definition, for various reasons. I will NOT be drawn into that OLD debate here and now.

The call you described is in NO WAY the "responsibility of the PU", however much you might want it to be. I have cited OBR 9.04 to establish that as a fact under the rules. BU's back was NOT turned at the moment of the contact, so PU cannot make the appropriate obstruction call secure in the knowledge that the BU did not see the obstruction. He saw it, but it looked to him like interference.

The preliminary action was NOT a part of the play or attempted play on the ball that was allegedly interfered with, so there is no justification for the PU to call anything earlier than that moment of contact.

Your apparent obsession with "protecting" your partner from making a wrong call is really nothing more than your underlying belief that YOU are in the best position to call EVERYTHING you see on the diamond, and you don't trust your partner to get it "ultimately correct". Note those words. They come from the updated version of the General Instructions to Umpires found in the NAPBL/PBUC Manual, and not from the OLD and OUTDATED version found following OBR 9.05. That is also and "OLD debate" into which I will not be drawn here and now.

Crap, Steve! You initiated this thread to enlist support for your flawed position taken in debate against Jim Porter, and looking for confirmation that you could usurp your (lesser) partner's calls when you felt like he might have "missed" something. That's simply not allowed under the rules. You are NOT doing your partner any favors by poaching his calls, so please stop trying to make it sound as though you are.

If you believe that then you'd be WRONG - morally, ethically and under the rules of the game you are required to administer. It was NOT YOUR CALL to make. No amount of blustering verbage will change that fact.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Sep 13th, 2003 at 06:33 PM]

An assumption is made in the original post that the PU saw what really happened. No one will ever know that is sure.

So, working on the assumption the PU saw it right and the BU called it wrong, and knowing:
» the defense had no complaints nor wanted to discuss the call (obviously)
» the offense had no complaints nor wanted to discuss the call
» the BU whose call I believe it was, never came to the PU for assistance

then:

Perhaps their karma for that moment was for them to unfairly lose the game.
Perhaps their karma will be better next time.