16 Minute Delay in SEC Tournament

[johnnyg08]

All kinds of fun here. Catcher Interference, Balk, Ejection, Appeal, and more..

Enjoy! 
 

 

[Velho]

Everyone, including the umpire they had on the broadcast, is getting wrapped around the axle on the "squeeze play" provision (8-3-p) and ignoring the fundamental obstruction (8-2-e-2).

Broadcasters debated if F2 touched the plate as the deciding factor to call this or not.

The squeeze provision is there to create an enhanced penalty (all runners advance even if not stealing). Making it worse, NCAA doesn't even need the separate section since they cover it in the initial rule.

Interesting note: in FED there is no enhanced penalty. If not stealing on the play there is no award unless forced.

 

NCAA 8-2-e-(2) : Any runner attempting to steal on a catcher’s interference with the batter’s swing shall be awarded the base the runner is attempting to reach If a runner is not attempting to steal on the catcher’s interference, the individual is not entitled to the next base, unless forced to advance because of the batter being awarded first base

Exception—If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play or a steal of home, the batter is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference

 

NCAA 8-3-p :  If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference

PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.

[grayhawk]

F2 doesn’t have to touch the plate. He’s literally camped over it. The reason is because he has taken away the batter’s ability to swing at the pitch. This is CI and a balk all day. 
 

With respect to the runner not touching the plate, because he was called out on the play, and then the umpires changed the call, he is not subject to being called out on appeal. 

[Jimurray]

The real problem is that this wasn't called by the PU right away. Footsteps coming your way from 3B, mantra, judge the pitch, watch for CI and BI, call the play.

[Velho]

44 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

With respect to the runner not touching the plate, because he was called out on the play, and then the umpires changed the call, he is not subject to being called out on appeal. 

Completely logical (too logical?). Any cite?

[Velho]

32 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The real problem is that this wasn't called by the PU right away. Footsteps coming your way from 3B, mantra, judge the pitch, watch for CI and BI, call the play.

They missed it the other day too so something in the water?

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Everyone, including the umpire they had on the broadcast, is getting wrapped around the axle on the "squeeze play" provision (8-3-p) and ignoring the fundamental obstruction (8-2-e-2).

Broadcasters debated if F2 touched the plate as the deciding factor to call this or not.

What am I missing?

Below is the SEC supervisor of baseball umpires Paul Guillie explaining the call. He keeps saying it was the right call because the catcher "stepped on or in front of home plate" (which he didn't it - and if did it was by millimeters) and harps endlessly it's a non-reviewable judgement call - which leaves the door open to saying the crew got it wrong.

Why not simply say: "Catcher took way the batter's ability to hit the pitch* by moving over the plate without the ball and by rule NCAA 8-2-e-(2), all runners advance and batter is awarded first base." ?

I'm a dink sitting in my den at home. Why does this seem simple to me? (putting aside speaking to a room full or reporters and cameras, which Paul seems very comfortable doing anyway).

* We're evidently ignoring that the batter gave up his opportunity to hit the pitch which JR says removes possibility of catcher INT/balk.

 

https://x.com/SEC/status/1794738230773879214

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, Velho said:

What am I missing?

 

* We're evidently ignoring that the batter gave up his opportunity to hit the pitch which JR says removes possibility of catcher

Some years ago CI was no called a few times and the only reason we could surmise was batter had bat on shoulder or stepped out. A year or two later NCAA put out an interp that a swing or attempt by the batter was NOT required to call CI. Even after that interp we had one coach who didn't trust the umpires to call it and we have a clip of his batter swinging over the catcher's head to get the CI call. Based on a few MLB occurrences I believe some MLB umpires ascribe to the J-R interp. 

The last two NCAA triple steals I recall were most likely CI but since R3 was safe there was no controversy and I think the coaches would rather have a triple steal on their record than give the batter 1B.

[dumbdumb]

let's hear from the brotherhood of former catchers turned umpires, about how the catcher is not physically stepping directly on the 17 inches of the plate or stepping directly on the 17 inches of ground in front of the plate so the perfect, no doubt, descriptive, objective, not subjective words, used on this play by the greatest announcers in the business reading out of the book, and how the defense is being cheated, etc by the umpire. the players and fans etc are all being cheated and the umpires should be fired, demoted just admit they blew it, etc etc.

where are the pictures of this play in the rule book so we have pictures to go with the words that leave no way to make the narrative presented go sideways one way or the other, but go directly to the way the rule is written and how they want it enforced and leave nothing to any other narrative but the exact way it is written and to be enforced.

[Umpy]

I was watching this live and was immediately confused by if "in front of home plate" was referring to directly in front of the plate or generally in front of the plate.  It looked like he stepped forward of the plate, but does that count as in front?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, dumbdumb said:

let's hear from the brotherhood of former catchers turned umpires,

 

[raises hand] Former catcher who was an @$$hole player. 

As a catcher, I wouldn't go NEAR the plate, let alone ON or IN FRONT of it, when there was a batter standing there with a bat in his hands.  That was mainly because I knew that I would, as a batter, take that shot.  I had a rough childhood and wasn't always a good kid.  

 

EDIT: I had to pause the video at the 5-ish minute mark where one announcer is trying to make a case for this being legal.  So, we are going to allow catchers to jump up and chase the batter out of the box as long as they catch the ball behind the plate?  OK, fine, stupid, but I'll humor you . . . so what is the call on the pitch?  Ball or strike?

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

 

* We're evidently ignoring that the batter gave up his opportunity to hit the pitch which JR says removes possibility of catcher INT/balk.

 

Ahh . . . but he can't give up that opportunity because NOTHING CAN HAPPEN after the interference occurs!  

One thing that I find weird about this play is that the batter is left handed.  He isn't vacating for the runner as a right-handed batter would; he is vacating because the catcher forced him out. EDIT: Which is the difference in the play in the Tennessee/Vandy game.  Right-handed batter never moves, catcher stays back just enough . . . 

Now that I have watched the whole video, I love the steal of third on the appeal.

[Velho]

51 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ahh . . . but he can't give up that opportunity because NOTHING CAN HAPPEN after the interference occurs!  

Judgement of which comes first. I'd call it as INT but it's not without merit to argue the batter bails before F2 interferes.

[dumbdumb]

could the old hidden ball trick words used for the pitcher possibly help with this rule, ie, on or astride or maybe throw in the word aside or closely aside.

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

Judgement of which comes first. I'd call it as INT but it's not without merit to argue the batter bails before F2 interferes.

But why does the batter bail?  A left-handed batter is not bailing to get out of the runner's way.  Maybe he suddenly wanted a ham sandwich?

[flyingron]

I suspect he feared getting hit by R3 oversliding.

 

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

But why does the batter bail?

To be sure he didn't INT(and because an coach told him to do so).

[Jimurray]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

EDIT: Which is the difference in the play in the Tennessee/Vandy game.  Right-handed batter never moves, catcher stays back just enough . . . 

 

While the NCAA rule wording literally can be used to no call, there is the standard CI which should also be applied. The catcher caught the ball in front of and over or next to the plate where the batter could have hit it. That batter could have swung and taken the catcher's glove off. While NCAA has put out interps that the lack of a swing does not matter in calling CI I suspect coaches next year will be telling their batters to clock the catcher.

"8-2-e. If any defensive player interferes with the batter’s swing or prevents the individual from striking at a pitched ball;"

[The Man in Blue]

@Jimurray … thank you!  I wasn’t clear that I felt the call still should have been made in that game, but was offering a reason it was missed there.

[Richvee]

48 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I suspect coaches next year will be telling their batters to clock the catcher.

Yep. Then we'll see the wording something like  "the batter need not attempt to swing" added to the rule itself  

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Yep. Then we'll see the wording something like  "the batter need not attempt to swing" added to the rule itself  

We will be seeing this again:

 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

We will be seeing this again:

 

I don't think I've ever heard a more clueless commentator....and production crew who just kept showing the collision and not the relevant parts of the play. But yes...we're gonna see more of this unless the CI is called when the batter bails. 

[dumbdumb]

why back out

maybe he wants to make sure he cannot in any way shape or form be called for an interference, making sure no words like discretion get applied like the recent IF situation or something else, since he doesn't know all the ifs ands and buts of every rule out there.

usually a pitchout of some kind goes with the runner stealing home and most of the time it is a right handed batter. i believe in the old days Harmon Killebrew use to swing high (just like swinging with a runner stealing 2nd, but intentionally swing high at armpit/shoulder height on the steal of home) and Rod Carew would slide low right under the swing. there was no catcher going to move up towards the pitcher if the home run hitter was swinging, especially only wearing a mask and a baseball cap turned backwards unless he wanted to basically sign his own death warrant.

oh, plowing the catcher on this if batters are not swinging, isn't that like intentionally (or is it really intentional since i am no mind reader--isn't that a question an ump always gets asked) drilling a guy in the back who is running out of the 45 foot/running lane to first.

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/26/2024 at 8:26 AM, grayhawk said:

F2 doesn’t have to touch the plate. He’s literally camped over it. The reason is because he has taken away the batter’s ability to swing at the pitch. This is CI and a balk all day. 
 

I absolutely disagree with this.  Let's talk spirit and intent of the rule, which is to protect the batter's opportunity to hit the ball.  Watch the replay.  The batter is bailing out before the pitch even gets to the plate.  The announcers keep talking about the position of the catcher.  In this play, that's not even relevant.  What IS relevant is the BATTER is backing out of the batter's box BEFORE the ball arrives.  The correct call should have been the runner is out. Period! As an umpire, it would be ten times easier to defend not calling it than calling it.  "Interference? Coach, your hitter wasn't even in the batter's box!" And, (Randy Bruns are you reading this?) these words should be added to the rule:  "...without possession of the ball and interferes with the batter or touches the batter or the bat......."  Amen.

 

[Velho]

18 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

these words should be added to the rule:  "...without possession of the ball and interferes with the batter or touches the batter or the bat......."  Amen.

I hear you but urge second order thinking. If that's the rule, batters will go Marichal on the catcher, i.e. they will hit the catch with the bat.

I think the bail out shouldn't be a consideration. If catcher comes past point of plate before catching the ball, it's CI. If R3 is also stealing, it's a balk as well.