Jump to content

Talk to partner, or wait till coach ask for conference


White47
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2493 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

I'll say it again UmpJeff, it doesn't matter that "no one else had a shot at it" if it didn't go through or by the fielder (as noumpere said).  (1)

By the way, "a runner hit by a batted ball is expected to be called out" is a direct quote from professional umpire training...maybe they were wrong. (2)

(1) I'm not adjudging on what noumpere said.  I agreed with him. 

I went strictly off the OP which, in part, stated... "Runner on second stealing in play, is hit with a batted ball AFTER IT HAS PASSED A DIVING THIRD BASEMAN, NO ONE ELSE HAD A SHOT TO FIELD IT."

Please tell me where I have fallen into the misconception you cite?  The rules address this particular situation quite clearly.

 

(2) It may be a direct quote from the PBUC manual, however, there are rules which cover circumstances that prevent the "expectation"...

2017 OBR 6.01(a)(11)...Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a
fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and
touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the
runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the
umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched
by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must
be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the
fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make
 a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the
runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted
        ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the
runner shall be called out for interference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UmpJeff said:

 

 

In making such decision the umpire must

be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the
fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make
 a play on the ball.

 

Then we are in agreement on the OP.  "The umpire must be convinced..." makes it clear that through or by is a judgment call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Then we are in agreement on the OP.  "The umpire must be convinced..." makes it clear that through or by is a judgment call.

Agreed that the umpire must be convinced the ball is through or by a fielder and no other fielder had an opportunity to play the ball is a judgment call. 

Where BU misapplied the rules is when he called R2 out for interference given the facts in the OP that the ball had passed a diving F5 and no one else had a shot to field it.  This is where I indicated that PU should have conferred with BU to get the call right and reverse BU's interference call on R2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel (and maybe I'm wrong) that you're getting hung up on the "no other fielder had an opportunity to play the ball" part of the rule you continue to quote.  That part works against your premise to not call the runner out.  The runner is out, unless the ball went through or by the fielder (judgment call), but even then he might by out if another fielder had a play on the ball. 

I'd have an issue with you if I'm the BU and I ruled that the ball did not go through or by (in the OP if it was well outside the dive of the fielder) and I called the runner out and you come out suggesting that I mis-applied a rule.

I'm sorry I forgot to record who wrote it, but someone on here summed up a runner hit by a batted ball perfectly:

The whole OBR logic:

A) A runner is out if hit by a (non-deflected, non-IFF) batted ball.  The runner is out, period.  End of story.

B) Except, that isn't fair to a runner if he could reasonably expect that a fielder would have made a play.  So, the "through or immediately past a fielder and hits a runner immediately behind the fielder" exception is added.

C) Except, that isn't fair to the defense, if another fielder could have made a play -- maybe the first fielder let it go on purpose because the second fielder had a better chance.  So, add the exception to the exception.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

I just feel (and maybe I'm wrong) that you're getting hung up on the "no other fielder had an opportunity to play the ball" part of the rule you continue to quote.  That part works against your premise to not call the runner out.  The runner is out, unless the ball went through or by the fielder (judgment call), but even then he might by out if another fielder had a play on the ball. 

I'd have an issue with you if I'm the BU and I ruled that the ball did not go through or by (in the OP if it was well outside the dive of the fielder) and I called the runner out and you come out suggesting that I mis-applied a rule.

 

John,

I am not getting hung up on the "no other fielder had an opportunity to play the ball" part of the rule.  I know the rule...both sides of it. 

If you were BU and you ruled that the ball did not go through, or by, and you called the runner out, I would not come out suggesting that you misapplied a rule because you didn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the coach talk to your partner, then if you have information, get together. Interference is a rule interpretation & a judgment call. He applied the rule correctly. He did not apply judgment correctly.

Had he called interference, but left the ball live, failed to return other runners, etc. then he would have misapplied the rule and you should step in and correct that situation unsolicited.

Since he called what he believed was interference and enforced the penalty correctly, it is a judgment call. Stay out of your partner's judgment calls until he requests your assistance. This is no different than your partner calling a kid out on a pickoff at 1st when he's clearly safe. Do you immediately call time and get together on that? If you do, I'm not working with you...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MidAmUmp said:

Let the coach talk to your partner, then if you have information, get together. Interference is a rule interpretation & a judgment call. He applied the rule correctly. He did not apply judgment correctly.

Had he called interference, but left the ball live, failed to return other runners, etc. then he would have misapplied the rule and you should step in and correct that situation unsolicited.

Since he called what he believed was interference and enforced the penalty correctly, it is a judgment call. Stay out of your partner's judgment calls until he requests your assistance. This is no different than your partner calling a kid out on a pickoff at 1st when he's clearly safe. Do you immediately call time and get together on that? If you do, I'm not working with you...

Best answer so far thank you. That's what i kinda thought just wanted some other opions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't have a problem with me as/my p as UIC (PU) calling time, getting together and getting it right. If it's a rules situation we make it right. If it's a judgement call we leave it alone. 

There are 3 teams out there!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...