ricka56

That's an interesting assertion. Can another fielder's (F2) intent to appeal a retouch satisfy the requirement that the appeal be mistakable, when the fielder "doing the deed" (F5) does not have the intent to appeal ? Though F5's attempt to tag the returning runner might be evidence that he didn't intent to appeal the retouch, or he ?might? be trying to cover both scenarios (umpire will/won't grant the appeal). Benefit of that doubt (IMO) goes to the defense.

The second video has the original play/call/conference/reversal ...the first is just the EJ http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/10/mlb-ejection-p-3-mike-winters-3-joe.html#more

The difference is: "we" think that he originally had the call right (K3) and talked himself into the wrong call (foul ball). you think he originally had the call wrong (foul tip/K3) and changed it wrongly again to foul ball. But the real difference? none. Just an embarrassing sitch either way.

Not nearly the OP, but today I had batter strike three, F2 mitts the pitch, batter's backswing knocks the ball out of his mitt into fair territory. It was an interesting few seconds as offensive and defense scrambled with no one knowing WTF had just happened...took me a second before flashing back to this thread and killing the mess that both teams were creating and one team was sure to bitch about.

Please cite the post game crew comments that would lead to this conclusion. I think you got this wrong. If Wolf originally had a foul tip near the ground, he would have (should have) given a foul tip mechanic. Instead he just gave a K3 mechanic (1B occupied/1 out)...F2 catching the pitch in flight was not necessary. I heard that Wolf made statements. Did he or any of the crew face a video camera ? Anyone got a link to that ?

I don't think this is good example obstruction in Fed/OBR (maybe NCAA, I dunno). In my opinion, the fielder is only blocking one corner of the base and giving the runner plenty of access to the base.

It is very difficult (though not impossible) to obstruction when the fielder possess the ball. In the sitch that you describe, no exception applies. No obstruction. Probably a DP.

Umpires that do this are dinosaurs. Technology has rendered these practices obsolete. Anyone insinuating that that was what PU did here are way off-base (IMO). PU knows that technology knows. The only person that PU would be punishing my intentionally missing that pitch would be himself.

Yet, I did...from a centerfield camera and U1, U2, and U3 had even better views. One sound is definitely mitt, so the other sound is either ground or bat (and it can't be both) . Any one of them seeing and communicating ball hitting ground could have save the crew.

BullSH*#. I saw it in realtime.

The umpire conference should have cleared up any question as to whether the pitch hit the ground.

Theoretically true. I don't remember if there were runners on in this sitch, but F2's first responsibility is preventing that fastball from going to the backstop. It'd be unreasonable to expect F2 to put the brakes on that desperate stab and not drag the pitch an inch or two further out. Given a choice between potentially saving a strike call or saving runner advancement, defense should always choose the latter. And they get what they get on the umpire's pitch decision.

Not buying that deke idea either. Seasoned F2s know that they can fool a PU into balling that pitch with that late a recovery. And if this F2 didn't, he knows now. Though PU didn't catch this one. I have seen MLB umpires get that strike, but that's a new technology forced adjustment, umpires have had to make (for the better, IMO). F2 should have apologized to (not bitch at) PU for making that pitch very hard to call.

Can you imagine the bar-b-Q. Wolf would have been the one that stole a back-to-back WS championship and suffer a fate that Bartman wouldn't wish on his worst enemy.

Yeah, I think so. Only use the rules when there is no other choice... my new motto

^^^^^ This. If it were a foul ball there would have been three sounds... bat, ground and glove. That'll really test your timing. Incredible hard to catch, especially so I imagine with NLCS noise. IMO, PU looked unsure and was susceptible to suggestion that he missed it. That would suck. We'll probably never know if PU wanted to be talked out of his call or the crew talked him out of it. He bambozzled himself or his partners did, either way, PU has to own that. There was a good article in one of the referee magazines recently about not calling the things that you suspect happened, but didn't see. Article said that you'll be forgiven more easily for calling the erroneous things that you see, much easier than if you erroneously call something that you didn't see. This was an example of doing the latter. But the baseball gods were kind to the crew and the Dodgers didn't stick it up their arse. Thanks gods.

My wife is super supportive too. She always wants to know my schedule, is very excited when Arbiter sends us notification of new games and is always disappointed when I have a rainout. She dresses to the nines for my departure.... not so much for my return ... but I'm sure that is because she had a hard day.

The under-officious umpires, who think that the game should be played as Ty Cobb would, bear some responsibility for the mis-interpretaions also.

I disagree. Fed 8-4-2 b and c are not just for force plays. To the OP: Slide or attempt to avoid contact rules were designed for safety, not to bail out poor defense. Coaches are always trying to bambozzle umpires into this over-officious call. Don't buy it.

^^^ This. The position of the batted ball (fair or foul) when touched is the only thing that matters.

Sorry for the snark...it was uncalled for. As a rule, I don't use rules unless I need to ... let the players play. But if I found myself in the OP TW, I'd use the above rule and skip taking the off-ramp to SH!+sburgh.

Here's the rule again. Read slowly if need be. This isn't that hard. 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. The backswing (follow-through) hitting the ball always happens "in back of the batter". It can't happen any other way. And calling CI on a backswing would get you a one-way ticket to Turdville.

Sorry that was a factious attempt (that I deleted, but you were too fast for me) at debunking the ridiculous assertion that F2 could somehow legally aid a batter from swinging. That's some hypothetical. Vary your scenario. F2 didn't catch the pitch, the pitch did hit the bat and ball rolled fair and the defense couldn't make a play on it. Wouldn't F2 catching the pitch instead be interference ?

On every half swing, the batter had intent (to swing) then didn't. How well the batter controls his bat has everything to do with whether or not the umpire rules a swing or not ... not his intent to stop the swing.

Not exactly...I didn't stop administering the BI to engage the 3BC/HC, I barked back at him while the play at 2B on the steal was being decided. But in general, I agree with your point and as others have pointed out, finish administering the BI before dealing with misbehaving participants. I think that was the most important umpire educational take-away from the video.