Steal of second, out , overturned (no BI?)

[Thunderheads]

I clearly see the overturn to safe, I get that, but ........... did anyone see, or agree with a possible BI here?

Edited June 19, 2015 by Thunderheads

[scrounge]

sure thought so...

[Thunderheads]

sure thought so...

​it was just like the Fonzi call the other day against the White Sox .........

[johnnyg08]

I don't know with basically a perfect throw how you'd judge CI there.

[noumpere]

It's hard to see a difference between this play and the white sox play from the other day, at least on the brief look at the beginning of the clip (I couldn't watch it all the way through so I don't know if they showed the batter later)

[UmpJeff]

I had CI also.

[johnnyg08]

I think the major difference between the this play and the Marquez play is the quality of the throw.  

The throw to 2B doesn't get better than that throw.  

[scrounge]

I think the major difference between the this play and the Marquez play is the quality of the throw.  

The throw to 2B doesn't get better than that throw.  

​I certainly agree, it was a great throw....but does the PU wait to see the quality of throw before making the call?

[Jimurray]

I don't have CI but I would be pointing BI right away. While the throw was not hindered, the catcher was hindered in stepping into the throw.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Jimurray

[Thunderheads]

I don't have CI but I would be pointing BI right away. While the throw was hindered, the catcher was hindered in stepping into the throw.

​DAMMIT JIM!   LOL!   Thanks..... I fixed it!  

[Mudder]

How does the quality of the throw impact the calling of the BI as BI is called immediately as the throw is released before you can judge quality?

[ElkOil]

So would it be correct that if BI was declared, once the call was overturned, call the batter out and return the runner?  Or does that not enter into the equation during a review?

[noumpere]

So would it be correct that if BI was declared, once the call was overturned, call the batter out and return the runner?  Or does that not enter into the equation during a review?

​Correct, unless it was strike 3 (I forget from the video)

[UmpJeff]

I had CI also.

​Let the record clearly reflect in the comment above, the Legend should read:  C=B...

D'oh!

[maven]

​I certainly agree, it was a great throw....but does the PU wait to see the quality of throw before making the call?

​No, call it when you see it.

And although it was a great throw, who's to say F2 wouldn't have made a better throw if unhindered?

This is PU's call, and Culbreth evidently judged that, although the batter stepped across the plate (which you can bet your boots he saw and processed), there was no hindrance. No hindrance = no INT: just stepping over the plate is not an infraction (though in lower levels I'd give the defense the benefit of the doubt here: a pro catcher can throw over a batter, but amateurs are less skilled, and I'd expect a partner to get batter INT on this at the levels I work).

As for the difference between this and the White Sox play: I'd have to compare them, but my initial recollection is that this batter ducked and the other one didn't (or did later).

[jpperez14]

What is the possibility that PU had BI, but since R1 was technically out at 2nd, so BI is ignored.
Then he goes and reviews the play, rules runner safe at 2nd, and forgot he had BI.

[johnnyg08]

That's what I'm saying...he judged no hinderance...and it is judgment.  

You call BI on that, you have to describe to the coach how a throw right on the nuts showed that he was hindered.  IMO, it's a tougher sell.

Also, if no throw is made you have to judge that the batter caused F2 to abort an attempt to retire the runner.  

BI is not automatic.  Yet, I like it when umpires call it, because it takes confidence and rules knowledge.