Coach's Interference

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
Just wondering about some of our resident umps take on the coach's interference call at 3rd base yesterday that ended the Rangers-Twins game.

I can't see (from the camera position) if he actually touched him or not... if he touched him, I have an out.

The rule reads a runner is out if assisted. There was no assistance here. I think it was a bad call.

It's an even worse call considering the umpire wasn't even looking at the runner. Pay attention at the :20 mark of this link. Awful and indefensible.


http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/v...id=11759303&c_id=tex

quote:

Originally posted by mrumpiresir:
The rule reads a runner is out if assisted. There was no assistance here. I think it was a bad call.

If the physical contact affected his baserunning in any way, it's assistance, even if it wasn't directly responsible for the change.

1. MLB has in the past ruled along the lines of the JEA interpreation:

"Professional Interpretation: “Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency."

Thus, the mere touching of a runners hand or arm, if designed to get his attention to stop qualifies as interference under this rule. One needn't grab the runner and drag him back.

2. I belive the video indicates that 3BU had the base coach in his peripheral vision.

3. I believe the reaction of the base coach, even before the out was called belies his claim of no touch.

I could present a case for either side to the protest committee. MLB has been on the BU's case this year to tighten up on the rules and mechanics. Perhaps a case of be careful of what you ask for.

Just curious ... is that play reviewable (via replay) if the ump had agreed to do so?

No. At least not in big boy ball. Little League seems to have agreed to review everything,

Even LL wouldn't review that. It was a good call.

Using the 4 man system what would the third base ump be looking at that he needs to rely on his periphial to see assistance?

Not trying to start anything but it would seem to me he would follow the runner until he was committed to home. That way he could see him touch third and see assistance.

Just curious.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Using the 4 man system what would the third base ump be looking at that he needs to rely on his periphial to see assistance?

For one thing, the ball. Watch the ball, glance at the runners.

The video isn't even definitive that there was any contact. But this ump can see the contact with his peripheral vision? No chance. Any suggestion that this was something other than a horrible call is dead wrong in my opinion.

Michael Young (though certainly not unbiased) summed it up "A bad call by a good umpire".

If you watch the video the umpire does pick up the ball but he has the play right beside him. When he sees the runner turn back he never tried to make a call at third, he imediately turned and banged the interference. I think he made a good call and he sold the heck out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I think he made a good call and he sold the heck out of it.

How can you possibly make that statement? Even the video doesn't show any clear interference, but the ump supposedly clearly saw it out of the corner of his eye? If it's the right call, why does he need to sell it? I understand defending your guys, but this is absurd. I'm just going to leave it alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
I'm just going to leave it alone.

1. The JEA provides the accepted interpretation for this call.

2. You are substituting your judgment based on a straightlined view of the replay camera for that of the umpire who was there. There is no guarantee that your judgement on available data is superior.

Thus, given that the intepretation is correct, I'll go with the call and how I have a different opinion of the existance of contact based on the same video you viewed.

That part of the play that was on glance importance level suddenly became the focus, but he doesn't turn his head to directly look for contact. Instead his head pivots for the ball and he moves for position to make the call at third. Then he turns back to make the call. I would think that if he saw potential contact coming, he would turn to pick that up. And it's also debateable if he even had an angle on the alleged touching; Young's body looks like it could be between the umpire and the "touch." It's very possible that one of the others had a good angle to offer help, but not sure if the Rangers were asking him to go to his partners or if they did and he refused.

quote:

Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I think he made a good call and he sold the heck out of it.

How can you possibly make that statement? Even the video doesn't show any clear interference, but the ump supposedly clearly saw it out of the corner of his eye? If it's the right call, why does he need to sell it? I understand defending your guys, but this is absurd. I'm just going to leave it alone.

What I mean by selling it is he never wavered or was indecisive in making the call. He didn't have a look like which call should I make. He jumped on the call all the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

Thus, the mere touching of a runners hand or arm, if designed to get his attention to stop qualifies as interference under this rule. One needn't grab the runner and drag him back.

I agree. However, the runner had already "applied the brakes" to return to the base when the contact occurred. In this instance, I would need to see some other physical assistance to call the INT.

quote:

I could present a case for either side to the protest committee.

Yep. From what I can see in the video clip (and that might be a whole lot less than what U3 saw), it was a good call. However, not calling the INT would have been a better call. JMO.