way so cool...............thanks.

+1.

So, by conjecture, what the heck happened to get to let's call the br out? I do not understand how where was the br could not have come up in the conversation. A process to come up with the correct call is not occurring IMO and this is discouraging and upsetting.

Since we have all seen this video, we should develop if we have not already done so, what to do on a play like this. Somebody has to know and have a system to determine where the runner or runners are when a dead ball call goes up and out. I think this play illustrates that talking about it in meetings is not getting it done. This is something that needs to be practiced on the field and drilled. Mike you now have a new drill for out next
Central Atlantic Clinic. What do think?

Umps have complained about lackluster clinics. We now have a great source to get live material that we can get into our training. The videos are priceless and it is what other sports do to improve their officials.

Where did you find that that #1 camp, Hess Field? :rolleyes:

Who wants to call her out? Pretty sure the consensus was that the ruling was wrong.
Hell, all three of the umpires didn't have the wherewithal to come up with that.

Yes, for this play most everyone here agrees the call was wrong. I was referring to the general situation of a double play situation, where the runner is struck with a throw while advancing to 2B. Usually this runner is far closer to 2B, and in those situations the interference/no interference rulings seem to be 50/50 (camp #1 v. camp #2) based on the reasoning I stated. Of course, we all know to which camp you belong, Irish.

And with those dumb rounded backstops they just put in at Hess, we might as well put a tarp over them, make camp, and start a campfire. :rolleyes:

+1

I don't think there are that many umpires in the "call the INT" camp as you think. Now, players and coaches, that's a different story.

Hate those clam-shell backstops. All they do is endanger the umpire, catcher and batter all for the sake of not having to chase a ball into the fields.

Devil's advocate, this part only. Let's forget or ignore for the moment that we all disagree with the result.

When the umpire crew gets together and discusses a judgment call, who here thinks the majority rules? Even if/when the majority is correct??

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the calling umpire's call unless he/she accepts the "additional missing piece"??

For all we know, two people were saying "Really?", and totally disagreeing for all the reasons we have been stating, yet failed to provide enough information to convince the calling umpire he erred. Absent that, what other outcome should we expect?

Or am I missing something?

You are absolutely correct, that is an assumption that can be made.

OTOH, I hope this conference was about more than just "additional missing piece" of information. I would like to think that, especially at this point of competition, the three actually reviewed the play and the rule. I don't think judgment comes into play here as there isn't much question that the runner was ruled out simply because she was hit by a thrown ball. There certainly wasn't any "act" of interference.

The only possible "additional missing piece" I can think of would be the point that there was no play @ 1B. That would have made for an easy resolution that would most likely have alleviated the call and the crew from major scrutiny.

It would also be nice to know how the ND coach approached the umpires and how the call was questioned. This could have been a case of someone with a separate view just not walking the crew through the play with commentary. Could have there been a fixation on an INT call that prevented them from considering the possibilty there was no play with which to interfere?

And just for ****s and giggles, wouldn't you love to know what was going through Candrea's mind at the time? :D

I think there are a lot of great lessons learned at Hess field.

Oh No you didnt
 

Uh oh. Now you've done it. Mbcrowder will be a long soon and chastise you for using the phrase "she's doing what she was supposed to do!". ;):D Where's mbcrowder when you need him? :D:rolleyes:;):p:)

Know a couple guys who learned the fine art of cow tipping at an umpire's tournament held there years ago :D

I agree with much of the rest of your post. However, I don't think you'll find many umpires who would view this play in replay and call it interference. Put that runner 20 feet closer to 2nd and move the batter back 20 feet, and you'll have your Camps 1 and 2.

:)

Cow tippin' isn't that much of an art . . is it all science. "Fine art(s)" are located a few miles west of Hess.:D

No your not missing anything.
In going back and looking at the replay, (yet again), after reading your post; stopping it at the :13, :14,& :15 sec. marks, you can see the crew all where they should at that point in the play.

PU is looking down the line to first and the BR.
U1 is at a 90 to 1st in foul ground looking toward 2nd and at R1.
U3 is on the outside of 2nd having just called the force out on R1 and watching the throw from F6 to F3.
then.......
U3, after making the INF call walks toward the first baseline and his partners where the conference.

Was he going there on his own to ask for a piece of information he was missing?
Was he beckoned by the PU or U1 who had a piece of information on the location of the BR?

While U3 can be faulted for not recognizing the location of the BR at the time he made the INF call, U1 (and PU trailing) had the responsibility for the BR.
Did they (B1&PU) just get caught up in watching the throw hit the runner and the fact that the BR had already touched 1st just escape them and never entered into the conversation when the conferenced?