Jump to content

Opppps!


aaluck
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 672 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

What the heck was that umpire doing out there in the dirt?

 

4 man crew a shot to the outfield his only responsibility is to watch the touch on 1b and to make sure F3 or F4 does not cause interference and he wanders out there and causes it himself?  

I'm like HUH?

IMHO BR should have been safe at 2nd due to umpire INT

 

ouch just ouch!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

What the heck was that umpire doing out there in the dirt?

 

4 man crew a shot to the outfield his only responsibility is to watch the touch on 1b and to make sure F3 or F4 does not cause interference and he wanders out there and causes it himself?  

I'm like HUH?

IMHO BR should have been safe at 2nd due to umpire INT

 

ouch just ouch!

 

I saw another one like this here:https://www.facebook.com/dean.kirkpatrick.14/videos/577676863928260/

(sorry if that isn't visible, it is on the 'Umpires' FB page, and has an umpire on the 3B line looking at something in the pixels in the outfield, and a runner comes and smacks into him, dropping him.  Kid seems to be checking on the umpire, while F2 at insistence of DHC, tags him out.

As far as calling the BR safe at 2nd... I REALLY would want to, but I'm not sure what you could defend that with.  Umpire interference doesn't apply here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

No such thing (in this type of play)

 

1 hour ago, LRZ said:

Who would expect a rule addressing umpire "interference" with a runner ("umpire obstruction")? Rules cannot anticipate every possible incident. Should 8.01(c) apply to this play?

 

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Yes I know UI is not covered in these situations but it damn well SHOULD.

defer it to 9.02a  judgement call by the 1BU  "if I had not tackled the runner in my judgement he was safe"  🤪

While there is no UI call for this play there was an Umpire Obstruction called quite a few years ago in an NCAA D1 Texas A&M game. U1 got in the way the same as the OP and I can't remember if the runner was out at 2B or just held at 1B but after the play the Aggie coach talked U1 into awarding 2B. Can't remember if the defensive coach came out but the call was accepted. While most opinions including mine was the rule was kicked the only quote from an NCAA official that was word of mouth was that "it was the right call for that ballgame." There was no protest. If you used 9.02a you would lose a protest but perhaps there would be none as evidenced in the A&M game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

What the heck was that umpire doing out there in the dirt?

Actually I think U3 was out leaving U1-2 in a slide--hard to tell for sure from the camera angle.  So he should have the BR into second.

 

But the point you make is valid  Why is he standing in the base path?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Actually I think U3 was out leaving U1-2 in a slide--hard to tell for sure from the camera angle.  So he should have the BR into second.

 

But the point you make is valid  Why is he standing in the base path?  

NCAA does not require umps to go out on routine fly balls. U3 might have read a no play fly and did not go out or delayed his decision to go out. U1 either was not sure or was slow in reading U3 and possibly started his in and pivot late or aborted it if he saw U3 stay in. We need video of all of the play and who did what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 2:39 PM, Jimurray said:

 

 

While there is no UI call for this play there was an Umpire Obstruction called quite a few years ago in an NCAA D1 Texas A&M game. U1 got in the way the same as the OP and I can't remember if the runner was out at 2B or just held at 1B but after the play the Aggie coach talked U1 into awarding 2B. Can't remember if the defensive coach came out but the call was accepted. While most opinions including mine was the rule was kicked the only quote from an NCAA official that was word of mouth was that "it was the right call for that ballgame." There was no protest. If you used 9.02a you would lose a protest but perhaps there would be none as evidenced in the A&M game.

It's now official (as it should have been then) that there is no remedy for this situation. Play on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Matt said:

It's now official (as it should have been then) that there is no remedy for this situation. Play on. 

It was official then also. The remedy for that game was kicking the rule and selling it to the defense without a protest. But what makes you say it is now official. I never saw that play highlighted by NCAA as a rule kick to make officials aware. I thought that possibly NCAA considered umpires kicking that rule again was not likely so they didn't highlight it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It was official then also. The remedy for that game was kicking the rule and selling it to the defense without a protest. But what makes you say it is now official. I never saw that play highlighted by NCAA as a rule kick to make officials aware. I thought that possibly NCAA considered umpires kicking that rule again was not likely so they didn't highlight it.

It was reiterated by Bruns in the past few days that this is not a form of interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matt said:

It was reiterated by Bruns in the past few days that this is not a form of interference.

I know it was iterated currently. You say "re". What was the first iteration aside from the fact that many of us were surprised that the rule was kicked in 2012 and not much was made of it by NCAA. There were some who denied it happened and if you search this site you can find an unsubstantiated quote attributed to an NCAA official that said "wrong by rule but right for the game". There is no doubt that this is not UI today, yesterday, or in 2012.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I know it was iterated currently. You say "re". What was the first iteration aside from the fact that many of us were surprised that the rule was kicked in 2012 and not much was made of it by NCAA. There were some who denied it happened and if you search this site you can find an unsubstantiated quote attributed to an NCAA official that said "wrong by rule but right for the game". There is no doubt that this is not UI today, yesterday, or in 2012.

Re as in what the rule says (or doesn't say) being the first iteration.

I'm very well aware of the previous comment and it makes my blood boil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...