Jump to content
  • 0

No Call?


Phu Bai
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1430 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.

Question

25 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

"Doing what they were supposed to do" is not part of any rule.

The only consideration that might make this not runner INT is tangle/untangle, and maybe that's what PU ruled. In view of the BR's delay, we've seen similar plays ruled INT.

I like INT for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
17 minutes ago, maven said:

"Doing what they were supposed to do" is not part of any rule.

The only consideration that might make this not runner INT is tangle/untangle, and maybe that's what PU ruled. In view of the BR's delay, we've seen similar plays ruled INT.

I like INT for that reason.

Ditto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, spiritump said:

both players (catcher/BR)were doing what they were suppose to do.  Good no call.

 

A runner who gets hit by a batted ball as he runs to the next base is doing what he's supposed to do.

A shortstop who runs into a baserunner while charging to field a ball is doing what he's supposed to do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Two very different things happened, IMO.

First you have tangle/untangle, with a batted ball at the plate, and the catcher and batter indeed doing what they're supposed to do. (Yeah, I hate that expression for nearly every play we call, but it actually applies here)

Then, after the initial contact, the BR actually stalls, looks back at the catcher, and then leans into him. There's your out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Close Call Sports/Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (UEFL) analyzed this play and ejection in April 2013 [titled MLB Ejection 017: Dan Iassogna (1; Charlie Manuel)]. The Appeals Board of the UEFL voted 5-1 to affirm the on-field call. At least two of the board members who voted agreement with the no-call are regular contributors here on U-E. Here’s what one wrote in his concurring opinion, “It's the classic F2/BR tangle. Both were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Here’s a video made by Close Call Sports about Tangle/Untangle:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
17 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

A runner who gets hit by a batted ball as he runs to the next base is doing what he's supposed to do. NOPE - he' has to avoid being hit by the ball

A shortstop who runs into a baserunner while charging to field a ball is doing what he's supposed to do. Yes - But the runner isn't - by rule.

 The runner has to avoid the fielder.

Not the same.  Review the Fisk-Armbrister play and the rulebook comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 4/3/2020 at 6:28 PM, beerguy55 said:

A runner who gets hit by a batted ball as he runs to the next base is doing what he is supposed to do.

 

Yes and No.

His job is to run the bases but his job is also to not get hit by the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 4/3/2020 at 6:28 PM, beerguy55 said:

A shortstop who runs into a baserunner while charging to field a ball is doing what he's supposed to do.

Most of the time Yes.

R2, ball hit between F5 and F6.  In the umpire's judgement, F5 is the protected fielder.  F6 charging in and running into R2 would be obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 4/4/2020 at 7:32 PM, Lou B said:

Most of the time Yes.

R2, ball hit between F5 and F6.  In the umpire's judgement, F5 is the protected fielder.  F6 charging in and running into R2 would be obstruction.

 

On 4/4/2020 at 2:35 PM, Lou B said:

Yes and No.

His job is to run the bases but his job is also to not get hit by the ball.

 

On 4/4/2020 at 10:17 AM, Rich Ives said:

Not the same.  Review the Fisk-Armbrister play and the rulebook comments.

Jesus Christ people...make a leap.

The point is "doing what he's supposed to be doing" is a lazy, dangerous and stupid statement.

R1 leading off first who gets hit by a screaming line drive, where he has no Godly chance whatsoever of avoiding contact, is "doing what he is supposed to be doing" and is still out.

There are dozens of cases where batters, runners, fielders and coaches are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing , but still get penalized because the rules say so, and SH*# happens. (ie. no intent, no negligence, no chance)

"Doing what he's supposed to be doing" is a meaningless statement...and rarely matters....it should not be used in baseball....ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I can find without much effort instances online of this phrase being used to describe the tangle/untangle play. But you know what? I cannot find anybody telling us not to use that phrase except here on U-E—not online or in any manuals. If it is so stupid, dangerous, lazy, and meaningless why isn’t anyone else warning us of the harm it can cause? Can you, Mr. beerguy55, please provide a citation from somewhere else emphasizing the need to avoid this phrase?

Here’s just one example. One of our infrequent contributors has actually written a book about the rules. He also has a blog in which he stated the following (and I suspect that this text also appears in his book) about the famous Fisk/Armbrister tangle/untangle play:

“Let’s go back to the 1975 World Series for a similar play with a different outcome.

“In this instance both the catcher and runner were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Contact could not be avoided. The umpires ruled to play on. Tough call for the Red Sox – of course if Fisk would have made a better throw the arguments would not have happened.”

And here’s what one of our frequent contributors said about this book, “a very well done book and a good supplement to the rule book itself.”

So, Mr. beerguy55, if you cannot find any references to cite for your dire warnings, it would seem to be a golden opportunity for you to write a book of your own and become a famous baseball writer. Carpe diem, Mr. beerguy55!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
14 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

So, Mr. beerguy55, if you cannot find any references to cite for your dire warnings, it would seem to be a golden opportunity for you to write a book of your own and become a famous baseball writer. Carpe diem, Mr. beerguy55

14 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Can you, Mr. beerguy55, please provide a citation from somewhere else emphasizing the need to avoid this phrase?

Yawn.  I'd say "common sense" - but I know that phrase is meaningless to you.  If it's not written in black and white, you're not interested.  And because a respected umpire wrote it down, you're going to glom onto it.  The fact is, for the one instance you show where it can apply, I can show you 100 where it doesn't, but where umpires new and old will try to explain it away - sometimes because they don't know the real rule...and sometimes, and has been demonstrated on these boards, they don't like the rule so they insert "they were both doing what they were supposed to be doing" to justify ignoring the rule as it's supposed to be enforced.  Over the years several members of the board have shown very real anecdotal examples where the phrase should not be used, and where and how it creates confusion.   The exception you note is exactly that, the exception...and by it's very nature proves the rule.   Call it an unwritten rule if it makes you feel better.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 6:28 PM, beerguy55 said:

A runner who gets hit by a batted ball as he runs to the next base is doing what he's supposed to do.

A shortstop who runs into a baserunner while charging to field a ball is doing what he's supposed to do.

 

When I say  "doing what they are suppose to do" others call it "Tangle -Un Tangle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, Lou B said:

1997 WS, Reggie Jackson hits 3 consecutive first pitch home runs off three different pitchers.

When asked about it after the game Joe Torre said: he was just doing what he's supposed to do!  :)

I didn't realize he played that long. :wacko:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, Lou B said:

Oops, obvious typo, 1977 not 1997.

Still, he was doing what he was supposed to (paid to) do!

I know. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember that time.

Just ribbing you my friend! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Sometimes its just baseball rule!    Exactly why there's umpires.    I  would have been okay with Interference, but I'm okay w/ no call.   WE have the  replay, but these guys are making a call live as its happening.

The commentators are Dumb AF thou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...