Odd Call

[isired]

Bases loaded, no out. Batter hits a roller to the pitcher, who throws to F6 covering 2B - bang-bang play, F6 on 2B, R1 slides into bag, R1 called out. Field ump then calls interference in R1, I guess for a hard slide, though directly at the base. F6 never made the throw.

Umpire calls it a double play, AND puts R2 and R3 back to 2B and 3B, no runs scored.

Forget about the initial call, that's judgement, but can they call the BR out AND send the runners back with no runs scored? Never seen that before. Major League rules.

[Replacematt]

57 minutes ago, isired said:

Bases loaded, no out. Batter hits a roller to the pitcher, who throws to F6 covering 2B - bang-bang play, F6 on 2B, R1 slides into bag, R1 called out. Field ump then calls interference in R1, I guess for a hard slide, though directly at the base. F6 never made the throw.

Umpire calls it a double play, AND puts R2 and R3 back to 2B and 3B, no runs scored.

Forget about the initial call, that's judgement, but can they call the BR out AND send the runners back with no runs scored? Never seen that before. Major League rules.

That is the proper enforcement. On all runner interference, the ball is immediately dead and the runners return. The BR is called out as the penalty, as R2 is already out. However, under OBR, there was a change mid-season that if there was no possibility of a double play, there is no additional out (which I vehemently disagree, as this is a safety rule and this means that there will never be a stronger penalty than the probable outcome of the play.)

[isired]

Wow, just an inopportune time to make the call I guess. It was a straightforward slide on a bang-bang play that gutted the inning for us. There was no other option for the runner.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, isired said:

Bases loaded, no out. Batter hits a roller to the pitcher, who throws to F6 covering 2B - bang-bang play, F6 on 2B, R1 slides into bag, R1 called out. Field ump then calls interference in R1, I guess for a hard slide, though directly at the base. F6 never made the throw.

Umpire calls it a double play, AND puts R2 and R3 back to 2B and 3B, no runs scored.

Forget about the initial call, that's judgement, but can they call the BR out AND send the runners back with no runs scored? Never seen that before. Major League rules.

If the runner just slid straight into the base it's not interference in ML rules.

[stkjock]

Did R1 maintain contact with second, did he initiate the slide so that his buttocks hit the ground well before the base, etc, if there was any action that could have made it a non-bonafide slide..... Well there ya go

[isired]

If the runner just slid straight into the base it's not interference in ML rules.

He did - it waa a high chopper to third - no chance they double off tye runner at first, runner going to second is significantly slower, but in his own words "I wasn't even trying to break up the double play, I thought I was going to be safe".

Did R1 maintain contact with second, did he initiate the slide so that his buttocks hit the ground well before the base, etc, if there was any action that could have made it a non-bonafide slide..... Well there ya go

Nothing extraordinary about the slide, butt hit the ground, cleats to the bag, but F6 definitely got the glove there first and he slid into the glove (low throw, not a tag play). The only issue was that the F6 was standing with one foot on the base, so R1's cleats did contact F6's leg at the base, which did cause F6 to fall. But if his cleats ever lost contact with the base it was minimally, I can't say, was sitting by 3B. They seemed to be in contact with the bag, certainly never went through the bag. F6 wasn't ever going to attempt a throw, it wasn't a play they could have made, and R2 was rounding 3B.

[stkjock]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

OBR - most of the FED BS isn't there.

Yes, I realize, I was going off the OBR rule as I recalled. IIRC all the things I mentioned are in 6.01(j)

 

Quote

Under the new Rule 6.01(j), a runner will have to make a "bona fide slide," which is defined as making contact with the ground before reaching the base, being able to and attempting to reach the base with a hand or foot, being able to and attempting to remain on the base at the completion of the slide (except at home plate) and not changing his path for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

 

[Rich Ives]

41 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Yes, I realize, I was going off the OBR rule as I recalled. IIRC all the things I mentioned are in 6.01(j)

 

 

Key word is "attempting to remain" - not required

[Replacematt]

45 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Key word is "attempting to remain" - not required

For all intents and purposes, it is, since "being able to" is a requirement. The only reason that this clause is written this way is so runners can voluntarily leave the base, with no further interfering action, and not be considered automatically out.

[isired]

Wow, after reading that what constitutes a legal slide is so well defined, this was a badly blown call. R1 easily hit the ground before the base, stopped with his feet on the base, and was nowhere near above the knee. Contact was at the foot or lower ankle.

Coach thought it was a case of a young umpire trying too hard to "umpire" - maybe he was right. Big time reach to make this call, if he doesn't make it no one would have been looking for it.

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, isired said:

 

 

Coach thought it was a case of a young umpire trying too hard to "umpire" - maybe he was right.

If that's the case, I applaud the young umpire for making the call. Maybe it was a legal slide, but the kid saw contact and F6 falling down, and he had the gumption to make the tough, unpopular call in a big situation. His judgement will get better as he gains experience, but he's got what what it takes to call what you see. There's far too many examples of this not getting called when it should, especially at the high school level.

[Replacematt]

37 minutes ago, isired said:

 

In my view its nothing to be applauded, for two reasons - first, it wasn't a double-play ball. R1 was reaching 2B as the ball was, the BR was through the bag a step later. If R1 decided to atop and sit in the basepath midway between 1B and 2B, F6 still wouldnt have attempted a throw to first. So to put the BR in jeopardy for a call that you're going out of your way to make is a showboat move, an umpire trying to be bigger than the game.

Just stop. You had a lot of respect here until you pulled this bullSH*# out. The kid, and that is what he is, made a mistake. It happens. I have yet to see an umpire, at any level, even approach the amount of egotism and being bigger than the game as the participants do.

[isired]

I have yet to see an umpire, at any level, even approach the amount of egotism and being bigger than the game as the participants do.

Well you're certainly right about that. Maybe he just blew the call, I just think that there's got to be some reason to turn a standard, run of the mill play into a game-changer. But I'll reserve judgement until we see him again. And he wasn't a "kid" - probably 28-30 years old, just a lot younger than most of our umpires. Players are 13U.

[ALStripes17]

Well you're certainly right about that. Maybe he just blew the call, I just think that there's got to be some reason to turn a standard, run of the mill play into a game-changer. But I'll reserve judgement until we see him again. And he wasn't a "kid" - probably 28-30 years old, just a lot younger than most of our umpires. Players are 13U.

28-30 IS young in the umpire world. And the way your last few posts read, youre the reason the young umpires aren't able to be retained. As Rich said before, you had a lot of respect from this forum until you repeatedly pulled out ego and blown call multiple times. I guarantee you he didn't have an interest who won the game.

Oh, and it was 13U. Get over it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[GPblue]

8 hours ago, isired said:

Well you're certainly right about that. Maybe he just blew the call, I just think that there's got to be some reason to turn a standard, run of the mill play into a game-changer. But I'll reserve judgement until we see him again. And he wasn't a "kid" - probably 28-30 years old, just a lot younger than most of our umpires. Players are 13U.

13U and they are just Playing OBR without amendments?  I know most the tournaments I do at that level add in the FPSR to make sure kids are safe.

[isired]

No amendments were supplied, this is a fall ball league.

[ALStripes17]

No amendments were supplied, this is a fall ball league.

Only hitting 9 in the lineup? No pitch counts?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[isired]

28-30 IS young in the umpire world. And the way your last few posts read, youre the reason the young umpires aren't able to be retained. As Rich said before, you had a lot of respect from this forum until you repeatedly pulled out ego and blown call multiple times. I guarantee you he didn't have an interest who won the game.

Oh, and it was 13U. Get over it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I didn't say for a second that he had an interest in who won. I said that our coach thought maybe he was looking to make a big call. We've all seen that, not often, but it happens. The plate ump had a sheepish look, then shrugged and looked heavenward when asked to weigh in, said "not my call" - which of course it wasn't.

Winning or losing the game is not an issue, it's fall ball, but we want to be able to instruct the kids as to what to do differently - and don't want to give away 2 outs in the future on a ball that won't be a DP. Surely you can see the merit in that. We had a dozen very confused kids, one slid very tentatively later in the game, twisted his knee as a result.

Anyway, my reaction and using the term 'blown call' was probably over the top - I didn't know the full extent of the new Rule, haven't officially umpired in a while - so I came here to see if it was enforced properly, which it was. When I was pointed in the direction of the rule, and saw the pretty narrowly defined rules for what makes a slide legal or illegal in that situation, I was shocked and that shaded my posts.

I said nothing heated or otherwise to the umpire. I had a very short, pleasant conversation with him after the game, asked what R1 should have done differently, he told me he slid late with cleats up, I said "OK, thanks, take care".

[ALStripes17]

I didn't say for a second that he had an interest in who won. I said that our coach thought maybe he was looking to make a big call. We've all seen that, not often, but it happens. The plate ump had a sheepish look, then shrugged and looked heavenward when asked to weigh in, said "not my call" - which of course it wasn't. Winning or losing the game is not an issue, it's fall ball, but we want to be able to instruct the kids as to what to do differently - don't want to give away 2 outs in the future on a ball that won't be a DP. Surely you can see the merit in that. We had a dozen very confused kids, one slid very tentatively later in the game, twisted his knee as a result.

Anyway, my reaction and using the term 'blown call' was probably over the top - I didn't know the full extent of the new Rule, haven't officially umpired in a while - so I came here to see if it was enforced properly, which it was. When I was pointed in the direction of the rule, and saw the pretty narrowly defined rules for what makes a slide legal or illegal in that situation, I was shocked and that shaded my posts.

I said nothing heated or otherwise to the umpire. I had a very short, pleasant conversation with him after the game, asked what R1 should have done differently, he told me he slid late with cleats up, I said "OK, thanks, take care".

The problem we have here is not coming to ask for clarification, but chastising the umpire for supposedly missing a call.

Umpires don't go out of their way to make the big calls. We look to keep it safe and keep it fair within the rules. The PU has no business watching that play or having a comment anyway. He's over 100 ft away watching the R3's timing of touching the plate. His comment and body language is useless.

The call doesn't change how the game is played and it's asinine to even begin to believe a twisted knee happened because of an umpire's call in previous innings.

Again, if he judged he's sliding late with cleats up, he nailed it in a 13U fall ball game. We protect players below HS and I'd be very surprised to see a fall ball league using straight OBR in every aspect. That, and it's very common for situations to be described by fans/coaches A LOT differently than how the play actually happened.

We don't like to hear about our brothers in blue missing calls. It does happen, but an umpire forum still isn't going to take kindly to it. Ask the situation/rule/interpretation, get your answer, and move on. Just remember the answer you get is limited by your view of the situation and the scope in which it is described.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[isired]

13U and they are just Playing OBR without amendments?  I know most the tournaments I do at that level add in the FPSR to make sure kids are safe.

I don't see much difference in the new OBR and the FED FPSR - how does that usually come up in the tournaments where you've seen it?

[isired]

Only hitting 9 in the lineup? No pitch counts?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Sorry, I meant no amendments to a slide rule. Very few overall (mostly regarding rosters and bats), no pitch counts etc.

[isired]

The problem we have here is not coming to ask for clarification, but chastising the umpire for supposedly missing a call.

Umpires don't go out of their way to make the big calls. We look to keep it safe and keep it fair within the rules. The PU has no business watching that play or having a comment anyway. He's over 100 ft away watching the R3's timing of touching the plate. His comment and body language is useless.

The call doesn't change how the game is played and it's asinine to even begin to believe a twisted knee happened because of an umpire's call in previous innings.

Again, if he judged he's sliding late with cleats up, he nailed it in a 13U fall ball game. We protect players below HS and I'd be very surprised to see a fall ball league using straight OBR in every aspect. That, and it's very common for situations to be described by fans/coaches A LOT differently than how the play actually happened.

We don't like to hear about our brothers in blue missing calls. It does happen, but an umpire forum still isn't going to take kindly to it. Ask the situation/rule/interpretation, get your answer, and move on. Just remember the answer you get is limited by your view of the situation and the scope in which it is described.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No point in discussing further, I guess I would assume that it might be described differently by a fan or coach too. I continued the conversation because I was looking for something to bring the kids next practice in terms of what to do differently to get a different outcome, but I think that's probably not possible, just a tight call that hopefully won't happen again.

[Aging_Arbiter]

4 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Oh, and it was 13U. Get over it.

 

 What?  You mean college scholarships and professional contracts could not be affected by this one call in fall ball??  The nerve!

[isired]

 What?  You mean college scholarships and professional contracts could not be affected by this one call in fall ball??  The nerve!

Look, mistakes get made, in baseball probably more than any other sport (I dont know of another where an umpire is asked ro make 200+ calls a game). But what's the point in playing fall ball, or any ball at all at that age, if you can't learn from the experience? Sure, there are only maybe 1-2 kids on the field that day that would be close to scholarship players, if everything breaks right for them over the next 5 years. But most/many of these kids are the future umpires and coaches of the world.

[grayhawk]

I don't think anyone takes exception to comments about a call being missed.  It happens to ALL of us.  It's taking it to the next level where the motivations and thought process of the umpire are being put under scrutiny where people's feathers got ruffled.

Maybe he just didn't know the rule.  Maybe he had made it a personal point of emphasis to not miss interference, and was overzealous on this particular call.  Since this was 13U, it's likely that this was a fairly inexperienced umpire and he saw something that he thought was illegal and acted on it.  Those are MUCH more likely scenarios than any of the following:

"Coach thought it was a case of a young umpire trying too hard to "umpire" - maybe he was right."
"So to put the BR in jeopardy for a call that you're going out of your way to make is a showboat move, an umpire trying to be bigger than the game."

See what you did?  You took what was a simple mistake and turned it into an umpire who was somehow motivated to "showboat" and to be "bigger than the game."  I understand that the outcome variance was quite large on this play, but that's no reason to believe that this umpire did anything nefarious.

[isired]

I don't think anyone takes exception to comments about a call being missed.  It happens to ALL of us.  It's taking it to the next level where the motivations and thought process of the umpire are being put under scrutiny where people's feathers got ruffled.

Maybe he just didn't know the rule.  Maybe he had made it a personal point of emphasis to not miss interference, and was overzealous on this particular call.  Since this was 13U, it's likely that this was a fairly inexperienced umpire and he saw something that he thought was illegal and acted on it.  Those are MUCH more likely scenarios than any of the following:

"Coach thought it was a case of a young umpire trying too hard to "umpire" - maybe he was right."

"So to put the BR in jeopardy for a call that you're going out of your way to make is a showboat move, an umpire trying to be bigger than the game."

See what you did?  You took what was a simple mistake and turned it into an umpire who was somehow motivated to "showboat" and to be "bigger than the game."  I understand that the outcome variance was quite large on this play, but that's no reason to believe that this umpire did anything nefarious.

Ahh, I think you're right. You probably hit the nail on the head with your initial reasoning - probably made this somewhat 'famous' new rule a point of emphasis, and was overzealous in the call. I think you're also right in his experience level, because he was the field ump both games, which I've not seen before.

Anyway, my bad, I can see why it ruffled feathers. I felt like some were being overly critical of my explanation, reasoning or motive, and went 180 degrees back at them, but it was misplaced.

Thanks for your clarification, and to everyone who helped on the rule. This is a great resource, I appreciate and enjoy it.