Umpire mechanics - A-Rod interference

Dakota · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 10:08am

Assume the A-Rod interference on F1's tag attempt had been made in an ASA softball game.

Assume BU was screened (as U1 was in the Yanks/Sox game) and could not see the interference (and hence, could not see the tag attempt itself - only that F1 had the ball and was running to attempt a play).

In the actual game, U1 signals SAFE immediately as the ball is loose rolling into right field and as the BR is running very wide of the base. Defensive coach comes out. U1 asks for help from his partners. Call is reversed and BR is out.

So, we have a missed base and a missed tag (assuming the BU could see enough to see the missed tag - remember, he was screened from seeing the very obvious interference). PU sees the interference but says nothing until asked.

Comments on the mechanic of the SAFE signal?

Comments on how the call was reversed (BU asked for help)? Should the PU have called the ball dead as soon as he saw the interference?

whiskers_ump · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 11:24am

Yes, play should have been killed immediately when PU saw the
interference.

Hell, I did'nt see interference, but then I am a "die hard" Yankee
fan.

Yes, there was interference.

glen

jstark23 · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 12:23pm

Glen,
Be honest about it you are just a DIE HARD

edited to make my former English professors happy

[Edited by jstark23 on Oct 20th, 2004 at 02:14 PM]

Dakota · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
but then I am a "die hard" Yankee fan.

How could a good ol' boy from East Texas be a yankee fan?? Sounds like fightin' words 'round those parts, son!

AtlUmpSteve · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Assume the A-Rod interference on F1's tag attempt had been made in an ASA softball game.

Assume BU was screened (as U1 was in the Yanks/Sox game) and could not see the interference (and hence, could not see the tag attempt itself - only that F1 had the ball and was running to attempt a play).

In the actual game, U1 signals SAFE immediately as the ball is loose rolling into right field and as the BR is running very wide of the base. Defensive coach comes out. U1 asks for help from his partners. Call is reversed and BR is out.

So, we have a missed base and a missed tag (assuming the BU could see enough to see the missed tag - remember, he was screened from seeing the very obvious interference). PU sees the interference but says nothing until asked.

Comments on the mechanic of the SAFE signal?

Comments on how the call was reversed (BU asked for help)? Should the PU have called the ball dead as soon as he saw the interference?

In my opinion, we saw a "no tag, SAFE" call, not just a SAFE signal. Clearly a missed base, so a live ball appeal still available, and defense is not deterred by the "no tag" signal. Frankly, I thought he wasn't all that screened, didn't work to get the proper angle on an obvious tag attempt to happen, and should have seen the obvious interference.

That leads to why I think PU had to wait for a request for help. If PU knows BU didn't see it, all interference calls can and should be made by any umpire who sees it. But, if I am PU, it is right in front of my BU, in the last few feet of the base line, and I think he saw it? I think I have to let him make his call, use his judgement, and wait for him to ask if he is unsure. Otherwise, I am using my judgement from a distance over the man 10 feet away.

What I thought they may have missed was on the administration after making the interference call. Does anyone think it is likely that Jeter (taking a lead on the pitch, and getting any kind of jump) hadn't already touched second base (and probably made a turn, even), before the time of the interference just a few steps short of the base? If he had, that would be the last base legally touched at the time of the interference, and he would not be returned to first under ASA rules.

mcrowder · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:06pm

If ALL runners (including BR) had made a base by the time of the interference, they get the last base they touched before the interference. If one (in this case, BR) has not, they get the base they were on at the TOP.

Tex · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:21pm

I agree already mentioned comments. I am thinking softball with my comments. The umpire mechanics of the 1st base umpire were correct in calling safe when the runner missed 1st base and waiting for the immediate live ball appeal. In this case with the ball going toward right field there would not be an imediate appeal. Noticed the runner went back to touch 1st base prior to going to 2nd base.

The mechanics of the other umpires were proper, waiting to be asked by the 1st base umpire before stating what they saw with the interference. The grouping of the umpires to render a decision and letting the 1st base umpire make the final call were also correct.

AtlUmpSteve makes good sense about placing the first runner on 2nd base instead of returning to 1st base. In the heat of the play, I would have placed the runner back to 1st. There were 6 umpires that saw that play last night and placed the runner back to 1st. In my games, I am either by myself or have a partner. I doubt if we would have seen the proper timing of the play. Also, the placing the runner at 2nd would have been another coach / umpire discussion.

Good comments and discussions.

IRISHMAFIA · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:25pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Assume the A-Rod interference on F1's tag attempt had been made in an ASA softball game.

Assume BU was screened (as U1 was in the Yanks/Sox game) and could not see the interference (and hence, could not see the tag attempt itself - only that F1 had the ball and was running to attempt a play).

In the actual game, U1 signals SAFE immediately as the ball is loose rolling into right field and as the BR is running very wide of the base. Defensive coach comes out. U1 asks for help from his partners. Call is reversed and BR is out.

So, we have a missed base and a missed tag (assuming the BU could see enough to see the missed tag - remember, he was screened from seeing the very obvious interference). PU sees the interference but says nothing until asked.

Comments on the mechanic of the SAFE signal?

A "no tag" may have been appropriate, but the runner certainly was not safe until they reach the base.

Quote:

Comments on how the call was reversed (BU asked for help)? Should the PU have called the ball dead as soon as he saw the interference?

If the PU was sure he saw INT, he should have made the call.

If they allowed the coach to come out and discuss the play, they obviously killed the ball. At that point, the missed bass becomes irrelevant.

Didn't see the play live, I watch sports.

azbigdawg · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 05:18pm

Mike..it wasnt a "safe" signal in reference to first base..it was a "safe" signal in reference to a put out attempt...once that ball came out...the safe signal was proper. I thought they all did a great job..in the past... they would have stuck with the call and ran Francona when he came out to ask about it. MLB umpiring has come a LONG way in the last few years...

BretMan · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 01:59pm

I wondered about why Jeter was placed back on first, thinking that he surely had made second given his leadoff and running on contact.

But, Jeter was correctly placed back at first under MLB rules.

If the interference occurs before the batter/runner reaches first base safely, then runners are returned to their base at time of pitch, instead of the base attained at the time of interference.

It's a baseball thing...

(Rule 2.0, Definition of Terms, Interference, paragraph (a))

whiskers_ump · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 03:57pm

Bretman,

Glad to see you move over here.

Welcome

JEL · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 04:02pm

Quote:

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Bretman,

Glad to see you move over here.

Welcome

Ditto,

Why did it take so long?

Not near as much arguing over here vs. over there. I'm sure you'll enjoy and be a welcome contributor!

Buddy

#13 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 09:36pm

Did anyone see obstruction by the fristbasemen in the game?

IRISHMAFIA · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 10:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by smsuatroy
Did anyone see obstruction by the fristbasemen in the game?

No, and I'll get it out of the way now:

There was no obstruction on the play,
There was no obstruction on the play,
There was no obstruction on the play,
There was no obstruction on the play.

Okay, that should cover me for a few posts!

AtlUmpSteve · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 21, 2004, 11:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by smsuatroy
Did anyone see obstruction by the fristbasemen in the game?

Who did he obstruct? The pitcher or the umpire? First baseman was easily 5 feet in fair territory at all times, and batter-runner is coming down the line, and veering into foul territory in the running lane to avoid the tag. The karate chop was right about the foul line, and he passes the bag 5' foul (that's how he missed it). The only way the 1B has impact is if A-Rod chases him down to try another ruse to steal a call.