Notre Dame, UA interference call

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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?