Jump to content

INT on a double play - Joe West

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4069 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

noumpere
noumpere

At first, I thought he might be getting the out for the right hand reaching up. I agree that a call for not being able to reach the base is "wrong."   Maybe Joe decided that two things that were "almo

scrounge
scrounge

Sure, but screw him Seriously though, laterally, on the camera from LF down to 1B, he's *probably* within reach, but is he also far enough straight in? In other words, he's on the long end of the tri

johnnyg08
johnnyg08

That's a tough one.  Under OBR, I don't see that as INT

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

Looks to me that JD could have easily reached second

maybe...if Bill Clinton was defining the word easily.
IMO, it was a toss-up...I wouldn't have a problem with either call.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

maybe...if Bill Clinton was defining the word easily.
IMO, it was a toss-up...I wouldn't have a problem with either call.

if he extends his arm he's got second no problem ....  not saying the call is wrong, ...this is a discussion .... I've seen this type of play not called INT many times in MLB....

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

At first, I thought he might be getting the out for the right hand reaching up.

I agree that a call for not being able to reach the base is "wrong."

 

Maybe Joe decided that two things that were "almost" INT adds up to one thing that is.  ;)

  • Like 2
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

That's pretty tight. Maybe there's movement afoot to tighten up this call to protect fielders further, since they now have zero leeway with the old "neighborhood play."

Or, maybe it's just Joe being Joe. :)

UmpJeff

UmpJeff

Posted
Posted

He could have easily touched the base.

EASILY!  I don't know what West was looking at.

scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

I'd have a little more sympathy for the runner if he even tried a meager attempt to reach out with his arm and didn't stick that foot out right at the fielder. He went right at the fielder...screw him. No problem with the call either way.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'd have a little more sympathy for the runner if he even tried a meager attempt to reach out with his arm and didn't stick that foot out right at the fielder. He went right at the fielder...screw him. No problem with the call either way.

.........but you're allowed to as long as you can reach the bag,..........right?

  • Like 1
scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

.........but you're allowed to as long as you can reach the bag,..........right?

Sure, but screw him :D

Seriously though, laterally, on the camera from LF down to 1B, he's *probably* within reach, but is he also far enough straight in? In other words, he's on the long end of the triangle. He may be within reach - maybe not - but since he didn't even make the weakest pretense of even trying, I'm fine if Old Man Joe wants to grab it.

  • Like 2
grozzly

grozzly

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wish for 1B ump's health the throw from second gets in F3's glove... and not a few feet on the left.....;)

Edited by grozzly
Platejob29

Platejob29

Posted
Posted

Could he have reached 2nd base if he extended his arm? Probably but that's not the only issue here. It's not about if he could have touched it, it's that he didn't even attempt to touch it. Too often as umpires, my self included, we get caught up in rule book definitions and what the rule says instead of what the rule actually means when interpreted and put into action. In this case we have all been focusing on if he could touch the base. In doing so we are forgetting the second part of that rule that takes the intent into account. I think in this example it's pretty obvious that the runner is willfully and deliberately attempting to hinder the fielder from making a throw to retire the BR, considering that the runner never even made an attempt to touch the bag.

Tksjewelry

Tksjewelry

Posted
Posted

large.Screenshot_2015-07-09-23-50-12.pngI'm weak on interference calls (it's going to be my off season focus this year) but I'm not understanding this: if at the point of "interference" the runner could have put his hand on the base that would be a nothing (if I'm following this correctly) and not be interference. I watched this play a dozen times or more trying to see where he could have reached his hand out to the base at the point of interference. Is it the camera angle or am I missing part of the rule to make this more of a borderline call? Maybe it's not at the time of the interference? Granted, I'm not going to my car tonight to pull out my book (which I normally would do before asking) and the online OBR jacks with my phone. 

 

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

When judging INT, we need to take 2 different factors into account (I'm considering only OBR here; many leagues have FED-ish modifications).

First is the player's location as he slides. Since a runner and fielder are moving through roughly the same space at roughly the same time, a collision is possible. The runner is entitled to slide "near" the base or into the base, and if that otherwise legal slide in and of itself hinders the fielder, then that hindrance is nothing. IOW, if a player slides legally, any hindrance is not INT. OTOH, if he is not sliding in the right place, that by itself does not constitute INT either: there would have to be hindrance (no hindrance = no INT).

Second is the slide itself. A runner might be able to reach the base, but if his top foot comes up above the knee and he spikes the fielder, we should get INT (and, for codes that have it, MC) for that. Even a slide that is right into the base can be illegal in a variety of ways (depending on the code) that could constitute INT if they hinder the fielder.

Pro ball has traditionally had a VERY high bar for INT based on both factors. Recently, to balance the demand that fielders actually tag the base when turning a double play, pro ball has begun enforcing the interp requiring runners to slide within reach of the base (in order to touch it, of course). But beyond that, they could still "break up 2" by sliding into the fielder.

As usual, what MLB umpires do (and how they do it) has little bearing on good umpiring at amateur levels.

  • Like 1
UMP45

UMP45

Posted
Posted

EASILY!  I don't know what West was looking at.

Why don't you ask him!

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...