MSU @ Alabama Batter's Interference

[grayhawk]

Bottom of the first.  R1 no outs.  R1 is stealing on the 3-2 pitch.  Batter takes called third strike and walks in front of the plate (possibly thinking it was ball 4) as F2 is making his throw to retire R1 at second.  R1 is safe.  PU appears to miss the batter's action as he's doing his strike 3 mechanic to the side (looking in the direction of the 1B dugout).  DC comes out and PU gets the crew together.  It's unclear at this point what they call, but they end up sending R1 back to first.  If BI was called, there is no provision in NCAA rules to simply send R1 back to first - he must be called out when the batter strikes out and interferes.  There was no swing, so no possibility of any kind of follow through interference.

 

u2NxtZV7Skevom6ISrwCAQ.MOV

[maven]

It looks to me as if U2 sent R1 to the (3B) dugout. Are you sure he was returned to 1B? The vid looks like you captured the TV broadcast on your phone, so I'm guessing you saw the aftermath.

If that's what happened, it's a blown something: if they called weak INT (or whatever NCAA calls it), that's the right penalty for an incorrect call; if they called batter INT, that's the correct call with an incorrect penalty.

[grayhawk]

18 minutes ago, maven said:

It looks to me as if U2 sent R1 to the (3B) dugout. Are you sure he was returned to 1B? The vid looks like you captured the TV broadcast on your phone, so I'm guessing you saw the aftermath.

If that's what happened, it's a blown something: if they called weak INT (or whatever NCAA calls it), that's the right penalty for an incorrect call; if they called batter INT, that's the correct call with an incorrect penalty.

They definitely sent him back to first.

[johnnyg08]

Was this a conference game with a conference crew? 

[grayhawk]

Was this a conference game with a conference crew? 

Yes. 4 man SEC crew.

[BT_Blue]

Is it bad I didn't read this as the college MSU and as the rule book MSU. Lol

[johnnyg08]

The "called third" mechanic needs some work if for the only reason...it negatively impacted his decision making ability on this play.

 

[BT_Blue]

Anyone have a video link for this?

[grayhawk]

Anyone have a video link for this?

It’s in my first post.

[BT_Blue]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

 

It’s in my first post.

 

Makes me have to download the video. Looking for an easy way out.

[Mister B]

10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The "called third" mechanic needs some work if for the only reason...it negatively impacted his decision making ability on this play.

 

Are the new MLB guys still doing this? I was told that turning your head like that is just asking for a mess. 

[umpstu]

Why I teach to keep your head facing the infield.  Not a lot of action between batter and catcher by the dugout.

[johnnyg08]

 

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, Mister B said:

Are the new MLB guys still doing this? I was told that turning your head like that is just asking for a mess. 

Almost a zero percent chance that this is taught anywhere. This clip is one obvious reason why. 

[MidAmUmp]

He called Umpire Interference. Go to 1:25 in the video, you can kind of see the catcher hit the umpire's mask with his elbow. I went back and watched the actual clip on ESPN3 and you can see it...the video above almost cuts it off, but the original clip shows it and it also shows the umpire calling time right after his strike 3 call.

[Jimurray]

21 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Almost a zero percent chance that this is taught anywhere. This clip is one obvious reason why. 

I mention every year I (attempt to, a two way steeet) teach new umpires that you shouldn't turn your head to signal the strike. But I have told them that I have never seen an experienced umpire with that mechanic do it to the detriment of missing as we have seen in the OP. I won't "teach" that any more. And tonight if you google the video of my dugout extension post in NCAA you will see another NCAA ump turn the head, unrelated to my NCAA post of course but now I'm wondering if he won't turn when he shouldn't.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

He called Umpire Interference. Go to 1:25 in the video, you can kind of see the catcher hit the umpire's mask with his elbow. I went back and watched the actual clip on ESPN3 and you can see it...the video above almost cuts it off, but the original clip shows it and it also shows the umpire calling time right after his strike 3 call.

100% that's what it is...good catch! 

[umpstu]

5 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

He called Umpire Interference. Go to 1:25 in the video, you can kind of see the catcher hit the umpire's mask with his elbow. I went back and watched the actual clip on ESPN3 and you can see it...the video above almost cuts it off, but the original clip shows it and it also shows the umpire calling time right after his strike 3 call.

Makes a lot more sense then.

[Jimurray]

Just now, johnnyg08 said:

100% that's what it is...good catch! 

Ok. That's my story. And the retired batter crossing was not INT because?

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I mention every year I (attempt to, a two way steeet) teach new umpires that you shouldn't turn your head to signal the strike. But I have told them that I have never seen an experienced umpire with that mechanic do it to the detriment of missing as we have seen in the OP. I won't "teach" that any more. And tonight if you google the video of my dugout extension post in NCAA you will see another NCAA ump turn the head, unrelated to my NCAA post of course but now I'm wondering if he won't turn when he shouldn't.

Some of the top guys will say that their timing is such that by the time they appear to look away, they've already checked off what they need to check off. 

I probably wouldn't teach a new guy to do it, but for the guys I've heard say it, it works for them because they are that good. 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

Ok. That's my story. And the retired batter crossing was not INT because?

Because it was umpire interference before the retired player hindered the catcher. 

[MidAmUmp]

Just now, Jimurray said:

Ok. That's my story. And the retired batter crossing was not INT because?

Enforce them in order. Catcher hit the umpire's mask first, so Umpire Interference takes precedence over Batter Interference.

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, MidAmUmp said:

Enforce them in order. Catcher hit the umpire's mask first, so Umpire Interference takes precedence over Batter Interference.

So why did they have to confer? If he had UI the time signal should have been followed by a chest tap and return the runner. 

[MidAmUmp]

15 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So why did they have to confer? If he had UI the time signal should have been followed by a chest tap and return the runner. 

Probably for the same reason you asked the following question...

And that's actually what he did...then they got together.

23 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Ok. That's my story. And the retired batter crossing was not INT because?

 

Better to get the crew together and make sure you're right, than end up screwing it up.

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

Probably for the same reason you asked the following question...

And that's actually what he did...then they got together.

 

Better to get the crew together and make sure you're right, than end up screwing it up.

So he called time when the catcher hit his mask and wondered if the following dead ball interference by the batter took precedence,  if you judge hindrance, was callable. Make's sense. I will continue to suggest to inexperienced umps to not turn the head on a strike call but will postulate, that if they see that done by experienced umps they know know what to catch before the head turn.