Interference at the plate

[zm1283]

 

 

[maineump]

I got nothing but a bad catch

[noumpere]

The runner clearly (to me) slapped down on the glove, and that's what the umpire saw.  Based *just* on that, it's INT.

 

Unfortunately for the umpire, the ball had already rolled away, and the umpire didn't / couldn't see that.

[ricka56]

Infield in, ground ball, throw home, I don't go to 3B extended.
POP/one adjust step either way and he sees F2 never catching the ball.
My two cent is PU over-hustled and screwed himself.

[maven]

The runner clearly (to me) slapped down on the glove, and that's what the umpire saw.  Based *just* on that, it's INT.

 

Unfortunately for the umpire, the ball had already rolled away, and the umpire didn't / couldn't see that.

That's what I see, too.

Looks like a newer pro guy who is still figuring out what to do when things go south. He needed to get with his partner and fix that instead of running people.

[UMP45]

Infield in, ground ball, throw home, I don't go to 3B extended.
POP/one adjust step either way and he sees F2 never catching the ball.
My two cent is PU over-hustled and screwed himself.

Ricka he was where he was supposed to be. This was a swipe tag play which puts the umpire on the catchers glove side hip. Just curious Maven. What did he need to fix?

[maven]

Just curious Maven. What did he need to fix?

His call, which seemed to be INT, was incorrect.

[UMP45]

How was he incorrect? He judged the runner slap the glove. That's INT no?

[ElkOil]

How was he incorrect? He judged the runner slap the glove. That's INT no?

If the catcher never had the ball, there can be no INT.  If the runner slapped the ball out of the glove, or by slapping him, prevented the catcher from catching the ball, yes, there would be INT.

Infield in, ground ball, throw home, I don't go to 3B extended.
POP/one adjust step either way and he sees F2 never catching the ball.
My two cent is PU over-hustled and screwed himself.

Agreed.  A play like this doesn't require a mechanic with a lot of movement.  Take a few steps back and be ready to adjust a bit as needed.

[noumpere]

That's what I see, too.

Looks like a newer pro guy who is still figuring out what to do when things go south. He needed to get with his partner and fix that instead of running people.

True, but his partner also should have come in with information, even if not asked.

 

It's a delicate dance, especially at the minor league level.  I mean. if you came in to me with information, I'd either tell you that I had it different, or accept your information, but either way I'd thank you for caring.  But, we're not competing for the next job at the next level.

[ElkOil]

True, but his partner also should have come in with information, even if not asked.

 

It's a delicate dance, especially at the minor league level.  I mean. if you came in to me with information, I'd either tell you that I had it different, or accept your information, but either way I'd thank you for caring.  But, we're not competing for the next job at the next level.

I hadn't thought of it from that angle.  

Not to hijack the thread, but do you, and others here, think there's a certain lack of  involvement of other umpires in order to either seem better by comparison or let your partner swing in the breeze?

[maven]

How was he incorrect? He judged the runner slap the glove. That's INT no?

Was F2 hindered in making a play on R3? The ball was on the ground 6 feet from him when the slap occurred. No hindrance = no INT.

Not to hijack the thread, but do you, and others here, think there's a certain lack of  involvement of other umpires in order to either seem better by comparison or let your partner swing in the breeze?

That would be a very bad way to ensure that great umpires advance. One of the features we expect in a great umpire is being a great crew-mate. Deliberately withholding info that could save the crew does not bode well for umpires trying to move up.

How do you suppose that crew evaluation conversation went? "Did you see the ball on the ground? Why didn't you do anything?" BU starts to look either incompetent or evil.

[ElkOil]

That would be a very bad way to ensure that great umpires advance. One of the features we expect in a great umpire is being a great crew-mate. Deliberately withholding info that could save the crew does not bode well for umpires trying to move up.

How do you suppose that crew evaluation conversation went? "Did you see the ball on the ground? Why didn't you do anything?" BU starts to look either incompetent or evil.

Indeed.  It just got me thinking when I read @noumpere's post.  Must be the conspiracy theorist in me getting suspicious.

[maven]

Indeed.  It just got me thinking when I read @noumpere's post.  Must be the conspiracy theorist in me getting suspicious.

Well he's old (), and it did indeed used to be pretty individualistic and overtly cutthroat. You made your own calls as an individual, and you lived and died with them as an individual. Going to a partner unsolicited could earn you a punch in the nose (literal or figurative).

The concepts of 'a quality crew', 'a crew saver call', and 'a bad call makes the crew look bad' are relatively recent and part of the "get it right" new school. Not to say there's no backstabbing, but noumpere is right that the "dance" has become far more "delicate."

[noumpere]

All I meant was that there's a fine line between "crew saving" and "back stabbing" and sometimes what is meant isn't what is received, or how it's viewed by supervisors.

[maven]

All I meant was that there's a fine line between "crew saving" and "back stabbing" and sometimes what is meant isn't what is received, or how it's viewed by supervisors.

True: and supervisors are not always on the same page about this either, which makes the choice all the more fraught.