An interesting and controversial play...

[UmpJM]

Guys,

 

Someone in my association posted a link to the video below on my association's private discussion board. The play in question begins at about the 1:57:30 mark of the video, and the play is the lead-off batter of a half-inning who hits a "gapper" to LCF. 

 

It has generated a rather spirited and wide-ranging discussion on my association's board - touching on a number of different rules and their proper application, umpire mechanics and communication, and game management.

 

This game is a "big" game - 2 (Catholic) HSs who are conference rivals, and the winner of the game determines first place in the conference. The game was played "under the lights" at a local college field. I though all y'all might find it interesting and worthy of discussion. What do you think?

 

http://www.highschoolcube.com/event/aurora-central-catholic-vs-montini-high-school-bas-308941#

 

JM

[GoodOldGus]

I'm going to assume the BU ruled Obstruction on the F5 for blocking the bag with out the ball?   My first, gut reaction was the runner was ejected for MC for the shove immediately following the slide.   I think making an Obstruction call in this particular situation is grabbing "the wrong end of the stick". 

[HeadHunterLA]

Watched this a few times and have to agree with Gus that BU ruled obstruction on F5 for some unknown reason, talk about starting a Sh*tstorm when it wasn't necessary.  The only thing that I saw other than a "baseball play" was runner did throw a bit of a forearm which in my mind probably warranted a warning, if even that.  And I think they did a horrible job of handling the situation, whose call was it?  BU, right?  Multiple conversations happening, PU involved way too early.  Crazy and fun to watch in a cringe worthy way.  BU needs some additional training I'd say.

[noumpere]

Ive seen rain delays take less time then this. lol.

 

And neither umpire was near the call - BU should have been under standard mechanics

 

Did the thrown ball go into the dugout?  Otherwise what was the justification for the award of home?  An out call would be judgement but could be supported imo.

 

Is there a newspaper article on the game?

[HeadHunterLA]

JM, curious to know what the consensus was on your association's board?

[grayhawk]

Good Lord that was messed up.  There was no obstruction - period.  F5 is straddling the bag waiting for the throw.  BR slides in time and pops up and gets hit in the back with the thrown ball and then shoves F5.  This act could justify MC, but I would not call it.  I have a big NOTHING on this play.  Look at the reaction of the players and the 3B coach.  There was little to no reaction, except 3B coach coming over to shake F5's hand and make sure he was okay.  Then BU, who must be as slow as molasses for not getting in position for the play at third, decides to make the unusual call on a mostly routine play.

 

Then they allow DC to jaw at PU on BU's call.  THEN they take 4-5 minutes to talk about it and then allow DC to go back to PU to argue again!  This was ugly all the way around.

[UmpJM]

HeadHunter,

 

I don't know that there is a "consensus" in my association, and that discussion is already over 150 posts long. I'm going to wait for others to chime in here before I give a synopsis of the discussion within my association. 

 

noumpere,

 

Though you can't really see from the video, the ball did not go out of play after deflecting off the runner.

 

JM

[noumpere]

I have to call some of my friends in Chicago on this.

[mstaylor]

A possible conclusion, they called obstruction on F5 for a fake tag causing the runner to slide. They then concluded that he may have made the turn and possibly tried to score. That's the only way he gets home on that. Does anybody actually know what they called?

[mjr_2013]

That poor announcer. Probably some high school or college kid, just looking to make a few bucks...

[mjr_2013]

As far as the play, I don't know what the hell happened... I think it should have just been left as is, but it wasn't. And I can't tell for the life of me what was actually called.

 

Runner looks pissed, coach looks pissed, both are looking at BU... Then runner and coach are elated as you see BU point home... It's like the BU changed his call. But the announcer says something about the PU doing something with the play. I can't see the PU with our camera angle.

 

So the world waits for JM.

 

--EDIT--

And what could the discussion have possibly lasted that long for??? I think most umps here could handle even the weirdest and most difficult of two man discussions in half that time... Unless that discussion was about where the plate ump should be to call balls and strikes, of course.

[BigSimonia]

No obstruction - Runner had access to the bag - Even if it was obstruction, wouldn't the runner (under FED) just be entitled to one base beyond the last base legally acquired before the obstruction - which in this case was 2nd, meaning an award of 3rd.  No way would I (in my judgment) award him more than that on this play.  So even with obstruction he just gets 3rd.  But I'm in the "No OBS" camp.

 

Now as for MC - I apparently have a quicker finger on that trigger than most here - throwing the elbow would probably have been enough (although it would be close for me)

[grayhawk]

That poor announcer. Prolly some high school or college kid, just looking to make a few bucks...

 

The funny thing is that I agree with his assessment - it should be nothing.  Also, when he goes through his sponsor spots and promos, his comment "aaaand, they're still talking" was priceless.

[maven]

My notes:

1. BU should be at or near the 3B cutout for this call. (FED mechanics have PU there.)
2. I can't support OBS here: F5 allows access to the base. I see no fake tag. The contact after BR slides does not prevent the BR from advancing.
3. I could support a MC/INT call for the thrown elbow. Hard to tell from the angle, and it could be just the runner popping up from his slide. So I could support a no call too.
4. I could understand an INT call for the pop-up slide, which is illegal due to contact with the fielder (2-32-2). On reflection, I don't think it hindered the defense, so ultimately I would not support it.
5. I can't tell what BU signals. When the camera picks him up, it looks like the end of an out signal. Then I see him point home. The reaction of the offense suggests that the initial call was out, then OBS and an award.
6. DC comes out to discuss/find out what the call was, and BU runs away. He needs to recognize that this is no garden variety safe/out, and there IS something to discuss here, especially given his somewhat unclear signals.
7. At 1:58:13 both umpires are returning to their positions, and neither is explaining anything to the DC. DC then goes to PU, who is the only umpire remaining in range. PU should ask the DC to stand by a moment. The crew should get together briefly to make a call before discussing it with the coaches.
8. The crew meeting is much too long. Go over the events together, each contributing what he saw and would rule on reflection. PU seems to be trying to talk BU into/out of something, and failing, and not letting it go. Any umpire may call OBS/INT/MC; if one has OBS and the other has MC/INT, the crew could have called both.
9. The crew reaches consensus, and BU reports the call to the DC. Then BU heads back to 3B (to tell the OC?), while the DC talks to PU some more. Once the BU reports the crew's call, there's nothing more to discuss: PU should send the DC back to the dugout.
10. 2:04:30, DC is in the PU's face over the call. Why? AFAICT PU made no call here.

Very strange, could have been handled better, at least nobody was ejected.

[Jimurray]

I have that pop up slide into the fielder as illegal. BR out.

"2-32-2a. The runner uses a ..... pop-up slide into the fielder."

[Mike Prince]

If he's not out for the pop-up slide right into the face of F5, the elbow borders on MC although the BU is nowhere to be found until well after the play, no telling what he thinks he saw.

 

Even if both of those are missed, hard to see how they award the B/R home on this.  He does not appear to be obstructed (although it is unclear if either umpire was in position to truly see anything) and as said previously, if it was judged to be OBS then he should get third base.  It seems a stretch to say he would have scored on a throw that hit him in the back and didn't go into DBT.

[spiritump]

how can BU make any call on this he is not even near the play--plate ump should not make a call on this play(not his job as freedy prince said)

[bam]

Ive seen rain delays take less time then this. lol.

 

And neither umpire was near the call - BU should have been under standard mechanics

 

Did the thrown ball go into the dugout?  Otherwise what was the justification for the award of home?  An out call would be judgement but could be supported imo.

 

Is there a newspaper article on the game?

 

#1 - How on God's green earth was THAT guy going to get close to 3rd on that play?

 

#2 - The left fielder throws like a girl

 

#3 - What a sh!tshow those two umpires put on.  It looked to me like PU was BEGGING BU to reconsider.  But at some point you've got to stop begging, man!

[zm1283]

That.  Was.  Bad.

 

All the way around.

 

No OBS, no fake tag, no INT on the runner, nothing AT ALL on this play.  Calling anything here means your finger is knuckle-deep in you nostril.  Then they handle the situation badly.  The BU's mechanics were bad awarding the BR home.  He ran away from the play after it happened when the DC came out.  Their conference took waaay too long. (And yes, the PU was trying to talk him out of it)  Then they let the DC come back out.  Where does the BU go at that point when the DC is eating on the PU's ass?  He heads toward third base and out of the camera's view.

 

I am interested to hear about the discussion in JM's group.

[carolinablue]

As others have said, the only call I can see being made here, if you are going to call anything, is either MC or illegal slide. I have nothing. Looks like they took the long way around but did get it right.

[johnnyg08]

All I have here is maybe an ejection for the shove.  

 

I'm not seeing the obstruction at all.

[bam]

As others have said, the only call I can see being made here, if you are going to call anything, is either MC or illegal slide. I have nothing. Looks like they took the long way around but did get it right.

Get it right?  What exactly did they get right?  They didn't call either MC or an illegal slide.  They took the long way around to get everything wrong, it seems to me. 

[zm1283]

All I have here is maybe an ejection for the shove.  

 

I'm not seeing the obstruction at all.

 

I wouldn't eject for the little shove here, but it could be supported by rule if you wanted to go there.  If nothing else had happened in the game, I think getting close to them and making sure nothing else happened would be sufficient.  

 

 

 

As others have said, the only call I can see being made here, if you are going to call anything, is either MC or illegal slide. I have nothing. Looks like they took the long way around but did get it right.

Get it right?  What exactly did they get right?  They didn't call either MC or an illegal slide.  They took the long way around to get everything wrong, it seems to me. 

 

 

Yeah I'm not sure what they got right.  There was no reason to award the runner home for OBS.  

[noumpere]

I have to call some of my friends in Chicago on this.

A couple of guys hadn't heard of this, but they did have good things to say about UmpJM.  Was this your group that worked it?

[UmpJM]

Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts and observations.

 

First, the call on the field was Obstruction, which was deemed to have occurred AFTER the BR had reached 3B - hence the award of home, per the FED "minimum one base beyond". The BU judged that the contact between the BR and F5 deprived the BR of the opportunity to attempt to advance home, and therefore ruled Obstruction. He did not judge the contact & shove by the BR rose to the level of malicious contact.

 

maven's post above gives a pretty good synopsis of the discussion on my association's board.

 

Mechanics: Consensus was that the BU was in very poor position for the initial call (should have been at/near the cutout at 3B), and his mechanics were, at best, confusing, when he made the call. It looked to me like the runner initially thought he had been called out, then thought he had been ejected, and then finally realized he was being awarded home. From what I saw of the mechanics, I don't blame him for thinking that.

 

The Ruling: Consensus on the board was that this was NOT obstruction because a) the fielder was straddling the bag and provided the BR FULL access to 3B, b) there was no fake tag and you can clearly see the 3BC emphatically signaling the runner to slide, and c) the contact which occurred after he reached 3B did not hinder him because he never showed any intention of attempting to advance and would have been "dead meat" had he done so (the ball had deflected towards home where it was picked up by another fielder).

 

There was some discussion of a "malicious contact" call, but the overwhelming consensus on the board was that the contact was not malicious (one person out of about 40 said they'd have MC). More than half said they would have given the runner at least a "knock it off" on the shove, and some said they'd give an "official" warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. Only the one person felt the "shove" warranted an ejection (the MC guy).

 

The primary point of contention that was raised, and which there was no consensus on, was the point raised by both maven (#4) and Jimurray regarding the legality of the slide. This was by far the most "wide ranging" part of the discussion and touched on questions of whether or not the slide should properly be deemed interference or "alteration of the play" (mostly no, but some yes), whether the contact qualified as "illegal contact" (generally yes, but some no), whether or not the fielder was "in the immediate act of making a play" (who the hell knows? - FED never bothers to say what they mean by that phrase, but mostly not), or whether any of that even mattered since the runner was not "forced" in this situation. Some just said it was "just a baseball play" and people were just "looking for boogers" by even considering the legality of the slide. The closest we came to consensus on this part was that the majority agreed that the slide put the runner at least "in jeopardy  of being called out: some felt that since the slide did NOT illegally alter/technically interfere (thrown ball, no intent to interfere by the runner), the runner was not liable to be called out on the slide; others felt that the "pop up slide into a fielder" was sufficient in and of itself under FED rules to call the runner out, even though it did not technically interfere. Relevant rules cited in the discussion included: 2-32-2a, 8-4-2b, and 8-4-2f.

 

Finally, someone sent a link to the video to our state's head rules interpreter and he came back and said:

 

1. Obstruction was an insupportable call on this play.

 

2. The runner was not guilty of interference or "illegal alteration of the play".

 

3. The runner should have been called out for an illegal slide because he made a pop-up slide into a fielder which, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to call the runner out, regardless of any interference or alteration.

 

Game Management: Pretty much concurrence that this was a textbook example of how NOT to do it in virtually ALL respects, for reasons similar to those brought up here. No one has any idea what on earth they could have possibly talked about for five minutes.

 

The Left Fielder's throw: Surprisingly, this never even came up in the association's discussion.   And it was just so "bam" of him to point it out in the manner he did. (Personally, it cracked me up.) When I first saw the video, I initially thought the outfielder was going to throw to 2B, because it certainly looked like that was where he was lined up to throw. I wonder if that had anything to do with the BU being out of position?

 

So, that's what I got, and thanks to everyone for playin'.

 

JM