From another board

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

not just dumbfounded, but just plain dumb.

he might was well have held up a sign inviting everyone and wrote on his forehead that the crew is divided.

he can has plenty of opportunity to discuss in postgame with his partner.

How do you know what he "looked" like?

What would you expect him to do, run out in the field waving his arms, screaming "no, no, no, live ball"?

Don't see either umpire killing the play, just the BU making a ruling on a play that, if you want to prioritize, wasn't his to make.

[MD Longhorn]

Interference on this play is not just a bad call but possibly even a rules mistake on the part of BU. I think, as PU, this warrants at least a bit of discussion to make sure it's horribly bad judgement (and thus unfixable) rather than a rules misunderstanding on his part (and thus necessarily fixable).

[shagpal]

you would instigate a discussion on the field?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Interference on this play is not just a bad call but possibly even a rules mistake on the part of BU. I think, as PU, this warrants at least a bit of discussion to make sure it's horribly bad judgement (and thus unfixable) rather than a rules misunderstanding on his part (and thus necessarily fixable).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

you would instigate a discussion on the field?

Instigate?

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Initiate? Depending on partner, yes. If there's any likelihood partner's decision is a rules error, we have an obligation to see it fixed. If I don't know partner, or if partner is someone I know to be new, I'm absolutely INITIATING ( ) a conversation with him to ask him if his decision is correct by rule. This (potentially at least) is equivalent to partner ruling someone out on IFF with 2 outs. We fix rule errors if we know a rule error has been made. We're required to.

OTOH, if this is a partner that I know to be knowledgable on the rules, I let it lie and ask him afterward why he made the ruling he made (and why he was fishing in my pond). Until then (unless asked by partner), I assume he saw something from his angle that I did not from mine that made him make this call.

[shagpal]

well, instigate, initiate, whatever. it certainly deserves postgame, and I would. but I think you are out of your mind to ponder anything during a game.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Instigate?

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Initiate? Depending on partner, yes. If there's any likelihood partner's decision is a rules error, we have an obligation to see it fixed. If I don't know partner, or if partner is someone I know to be new, I'm absolutely INITIATING ( ) a conversation with him to ask him if his decision is correct by rule. This (potentially at least) is equivalent to partner ruling someone out on IFF with 2 outs. We fix rule errors if we know a rule error has been made. We're required to.

OTOH, if this is a partner that I know to be knowledgable on the rules, I let it lie and ask him afterward why he made the ruling he made (and why he was fishing in my pond). Until then (unless asked by partner), I assume he saw something from his angle that I did not from mine that made him make this call.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

well, instigate, initiate, whatever. it certainly deserves postgame, and I would. but I think you are out of your mind to ponder anything during a game.

What do you do when your partner makes what is obviously an incorrect call by rule? (Not judgement ... rule). If your partner errs on an inappropriate IFF call ... or awards bases on a ball out of play based on TOP instead of TOT, etc --- do you do anything?

[shagpal]

this is a judgement call. actually, its not even his call, but nonetheless his call not for you to try to change. if he asks for help, he has to change it on his own self initated.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What do you do when your partner makes what is obviously an incorrect call by rule? (Not judgement ... rule). If your partner errs on an inappropriate IFF call ... or awards bases on a ball out of play based on TOP instead of TOT, etc --- do you do anything?

[shagpal]

its in the video.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How do you know what he "looked" like?

What would you expect him to do, run out in the field waving his arms, screaming "no, no, no, live ball"?

Don't see either umpire killing the play, just the BU making a ruling on a play that, if you want to prioritize, wasn't his to make.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

{Cringe}

Be careful here. A runner (or fielder, for that matter) can easily interfere (or obstruct) by "doing what she is supposed to".
There are many examples, such as when a runner going straight to her next base collides with a fielder fielding the ball,

The fielder is doing what she is SUPPOSED to do the runner is not. (The Runner is supposed to avoid the contact on this play if they do not the they are not doing what they are SUPPOSED to do they are INTERFERING.)

or when a fielder moves into the path of the runner while trying to catch an off-line throw.

The fielder is doing what they are supposed to do unless this act hinders the runner. ( If the throw gets their first nothing is wrong. The fielder must avoid hindering the runner with out the ball or they are guilty of OBSTRUCTION).

I would recommend not to use that line when justifying a call with a coach.

IF this play was not called and a coach came out to question interference on the play, my response to a coach would be in my judgment is no interference as the Batter-Runner did what she is SUPPOSED TO BY BOOK RULE.

Come on Manny get real we do not need to answer every Question here like talking to a coach unless asked how should we answer the coach!!!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

IF this play was not called and a coach came out to question interference on the play, my response to a coach would be in my judgment is no interference as the Batter-Runner did what she is SUPPOSED TO BY BOOK RULE.

Come on Manny get real we do not need to answer every Question here like talking to a coach unless asked how should we answer the coach!!!

Ugh. I hope you're never my umpire. I'd insist that you show me where the "book rule" (your words) defines what the batter-runner is "supposed to" do. I'd also insist that you look up the definition of batter-runner, as this player is not one at that point.

"Coach, she was doing what she's supposed to be doing" is NEVER the right answer. And it is never an explanation (even to other umpires) of why a particular call is correct.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ugh. I hope you're never my umpire. I'd insist that you show me where the "book rule" (your words) defines what the batter-runner is "supposed to" do. I'd also insist that you look up the definition of batter-runner, as this player is not one at that point.

"Coach, she was doing what she's supposed to be doing" is NEVER the right answer. And it is never an explanation (even to other umpires) of why a particular call is correct.

Mike You are correct at the time of the throw she is a retired runner.

Rule 8-7-p
Interference by a retired runner.

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.

Rule Supplement 33.
INTERFERENCE.

Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes,
hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual
distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution
of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball
anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered.

The act of a retired runner slowing and stopping in foul territory where they belong cannot be interference so by book rule no Interference.

[MD Longhorn]

IB - I'm good with all of your last post. And I agree with you that it's not interference.

My beef was with the crutch - "She was just doing what she was supposed to do". As an umpire, I cringe when a coach says that - it tells me he/she doesn't have any idea what the book says - it just doesn't "FEEL" right to them. When an umpire says it? Cringe is not nearly strong enough.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

IB - I'm good with all of your last post. And I agree with you that it's not interference.

My beef was with the crutch - "She was just doing what she was supposed to do". As an umpire, I cringe when a coach says that - it tells me he/she doesn't have any idea what the book says - it just doesn't "FEEL" right to them. When an umpire says it? Cringe is not nearly strong enough.

I hear you on that but on here I guess I dumb things down.
I have not had a problem on the field with an explanation or interpretation since my first year umpiring.

All of my different units insist we learn how to speak the rules to coaches. so I guess that is how I talk on here from her out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

its in the video.

You cannot even see half of his face once the catch is made and much less afterward. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, watching the play.

If I had to guess, I would say he is waiting for what never came, the partner looking for him if someone questioned the call.

He may have been dumbfounded, but unless you were the BU, you don't know

[shagpal]

his face isn't even a factor. he drew all attention to himself by freezing in that WTF pose while everyone else went about their business.

even the batter said some words as she approached, and he never turned to look, but he appeared to give a shrug. he was "gawking" at the play and lingering far too long after not to draw attention. its all in body language and some lack of. he telegraphed that he expected something coming such as a questioning of the call.

if he wanted to be in a better spot and available to help, how about he take his pad out and move into foul area near the running lane and wait while pretending to be jotting instead of starring down that image of a play long finished, or at least sweep the plate as he normally would have done.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You cannot even see half of his face once the catch is made and much less afterward. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, watching the play.

If I had to guess, I would say he is waiting for what never came, the partner looking for him if someone questioned the call.

He may have been dumbfounded, but unless you were the BU, you don't know