Backswing interference?

[Stk004]

Just now, scrounge said:

I still think they had it right the first time, the comment can't be read in isolation of the overall context of the rule, but since they are - by definition - right, that settles it. 

Or does it? Is this a binding interpretation or something that the rules committee or other such body has to endorse/clarify/adopt?

Until it's revised/clarified (if at all), we have an official interpretation from MLB on how they want this rule enforced. Before their statement I agreed with you (and Layne). 

[hbk314]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals

 

I assume he's referencing something in the MLB Umpires Manual? The way it's written in the rulebook, the correct call was made.

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, hbk314 said:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals

 

I assume he's referencing something in the MLB Umpires Manual? The way it's written in the rulebook, the correct call was made.

The way it's written in the MLBUM is the same. And by the letter of the rule and MLBUM  Layne kicked it  and kicked a plausible explanation of his interp. But why it took two weeks to find out what the rule authors meant means people were arguing about what they meant. Those who rationalized the call are not at fault. It could have gone either way.

[hbk314]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The way it's written in the MLBUM is the same. And by the letter of the rule and MLBUM  Layne kicked it  and kicked a plausible explanation of his interp. But why it took two weeks to find out what the rule authors meant means people were arguing about what they meant. Those who rationalized the call are not at fault. It could have gone either way.

The way I would read the rule book, the comments are there to clarify rules as you apply them. The relevant rule is 6.03(a)3, but Layne judged no interference, so I don't care what the comment says because the rule doesn't apply. 

 

Clearly MLB doesn't agree with that interpretation. They should fix the rule book, because Layne's call can be supported in black and white. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, hbk314 said:

Clearly MLB doesn't agree with that interpretation. They should fix the rule book, because Layne's call can be supported in black and white. 

You're not getting it. Torre is telling pro umpires how to read and enforce that rule. It doesn't need to be changed, because now it is clearer.

It works the same way at higher levels of football. A borderline case arises, the conference coordinator or national rules editor (NCAAF), or league VP for officials (NFL) puts out a video explaining how that play is to be officiated going forward, and then that's the official interpretation for that level.

What's unusual about the MLB situation is that all this is happening in public view, and Layne is being charged with an error (though I did not see the exact wording of Torre's announcement). That could have been handled later and behind the scenes.

Layne interpreted the rule as he was trained to do (and many of us thought he got it right). To have Torre provide a different interpretation does not entail that Layne got it wrong. It entails that the play will be officiated differently going forward.

[scrounge]

2 hours ago, maven said:

You're not getting it. Torre is telling pro umpires how to read and enforce that rule. It doesn't need to be changed, because now it is clearer.

Indeed....while I agree with @hbk314 that, in my opinion, the original ruling was correct and supportable by the rule, MLB has decided otherwise. They are - definitionally - right. Much like the Supreme Court, they're not the final say because they're intrinsically right, they're by definition right because they're the final say. They could change that interpretation next year or ten years from now, but going forward, this is the interpretation and the rule.

I'd also add that Torre and MLB *should* have put something out along the lines of "This rule is not entirely clear with potentially conflicting or vague aspects. While we believe the field ruling to be incorrect after further review, we will clarify and streamline this rule to make it easier to administer in the future" instead of just off-hand saying "Yea, Jerry got it wrong" in a radio interview. But I guess that would be asking too much of them to shoulder some of that responsibility.

 

[hbk314]

2 hours ago, maven said:

You're not getting it. Torre is telling pro umpires how to read and enforce that rule. It doesn't need to be changed, because now it is clearer.

It works the same way at higher levels of football. A borderline case arises, the conference coordinator or national rules editor (NCAAF), or league VP for officials (NFL) puts out a video explaining how that play is to be officiated going forward, and then that's the official interpretation for that level.

What's unusual about the MLB situation is that all this is happening in public view, and Layne is being charged with an error (though I did not see the exact wording of Torre's announcement). That could have been handled later and behind the scenes.

Layne interpreted the rule as he was trained to do (and many of us thought he got it right). To have Torre provide a different interpretation does not entail that Layne got it wrong. It entails that the play will be officiated differently going forward.

I agree with you. MLB has certainly made its view clear now. Unfortunately the ambiguity in the rule book allowed this situation to occur.

My issue is that Torre is basically throwing Layne under the bus even though his ruling can be supported by the rule book. And as much as I hate to make a weak "common sense" argument in a rules discussion, his ruling allowed things to play out fairly, in my opinion.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals

[VolUmp]

If there is such a distinction between the "letter" and "spirit" of such rules, Layne got this right 100%.

If INT is called, and penalties are assessed as if the INT never happened, there simply was no INT, because everything played out exactly as it would have. 

All this discussion, unfortunately, is about the letter of the rule.  Wieters didn't put up much of a fight, and after the game during the post-game interview, he sounded very humble — admitting he wasn't sure of the rule, but that it really shouldn't matter, because he should have blocked the 5-hole.

I think Wieters may be displaying more common sense than anyone of the MLB brass.  He knows he cost the Nats dearly with his two passed balls (regardless if they were scored WPs), and his CI call.

[goody14]

Am I right in saying that MLB and NFHS are now aligned on when to call the rule (enforcement is different since batter is out in high school and not in MLB for "weak" interference on a steal). The bat hitting the catcher is in and of itself enough to call the INT.

[hbk314]

57 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

If there is such a distinction between the "letter" and "spirit" of such rules, Layne got this right 100%.

If INT is called, and penalties are assessed as if the INT never happened, there simply was no INT, because everything played out exactly as it would have. 

All this discussion, unfortunately, is about the letter of the rule.  Wieters didn't put up much of a fight, and after the game during the post-game interview, he sounded very humble — admitting he wasn't sure of the rule, but that it really shouldn't matter, because he should have blocked the 5-hole.

I think Wieters may be displaying more common sense than anyone of the MLB brass.  He knows he cost the Nats dearly with his two passed balls (regardless if they were scored WPs), and his CI call.

The problem, in my eyes, is that his call can be supported by the rule as written. If he deemed there to be no interference, why should what's written in the comment even matter if the rule it's commenting on doesn't apply?

Obviously Torre's made clear how MLB wants this ruled going forward.

[VolUmp]

1 minute ago, hbk314 said:

The problem, in my eyes, is that his call can be supported by the rule as written. If he deemed there to be no interference, why should what's written in the comment even matter if the rule it's commenting on doesn't apply?

Obviously Torre's made clear how MLB wants this ruled going forward.

I think we are agreeing.  Just like the NFL changes their "what is a reception"  "interps" (sometimes from catch-to-catch) which really sucks for the officials, the NFL or MLB brass can come out and say, "That's really not what we meant."  Then the official is staring upward at the underside of a very large bus.

[Aging_Arbiter]

I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be Torre doing the actual interps.  How about getting an umpire in that position?  Just like some years back.....and I don't remember the actual play........but Joe Buck jacked the interpretation.  Steve Palermo (was supervising the game) was brought up into the booth (Yes, he was in a wheelchair)  for an interview and questioned by JB.  Steve Palermo gave the rule reference and explained why it was called correctly.  Joe F Buck looked at him and said "you're wrong".

 

Some have been called arm chair quarterbacks......Monday morning Quarterbacks....etc.....  Get someone in there that does it for a living.

[udbrky]

Well Joe Buck .... 

 

Isn't there a rules guy that Joe consults? Glad they ruled on it, cause that def needed some clarification.

 

That will still go down as the craziest inning I've ever watched. Jays-Rangers (Joey Bats batflip game) 5th inning is now second.

[VolUmp]

On 10/27/2017 at 3:57 PM, Aging_Arbiter said:

Joe F Buck looked at him and said "you're wrong".

Is a video or audio account findable online?  I’ve already searched with no success. It sounds like a punishable offense for Joe Buck to say that to Palermo.

Buck served as He-who-shall-not-be-named’s apologist for the 1,247 interps He-who-shall-not-be-named screwed up in his color commentating career (for which I blame Fox), but to diss Palermo to his face?  I don’t know how Fox tolerated it — which is why I wanna see/hear it. 

[ricka56]

From CCS:
Rule 6.03(a)(3) & (4) Comment ("If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play") makes no exception nor allowance for any issue... 

This backswing (follow-thru) OBR rule is the kind of lowest common denominator rule (and official interp) that the Fed would create. When contact occurs from a backswing (follow-thru), umpires can't be trusted to distinguish between [6.01(a)(5)] interference, a dead ball strike non-interference and  "that's nothing".