Worst Call in Moline !?! MG vs Birm Mustangs

[vcblue]

Don't be an a$$. I am just showing how one umpire may have judged this as IC and how it is supported in the book. Myself and others have said we judged this was INT. But this was a judgment call, and if protested the blue very easily could have said to the UIC, "I judged IC as supported by RS 13". The UIC would have to back him up. If he didn't then the UIC doesn't know the rules.

You can't use "judgment" as your justification to apply a rule that doesn't in any way, shape or form apply to the play at hand.

Then one must wonder why the RS is in the book. RS33 references RS 13.

[Comp]

Forget about the rules supplements then. ASA rule 8-2-F-1 Batter-Runner is out when batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

[Bretman]

Forget the Rules Supplement for a minute. The R/S's aren't playing rules and nothing in a R/S can supercede a playing rule.

The "Crash Rule" itself (8-7-Q) clearly refers to a play where the fielder has possession of the ball and the runner runs into them- in other words, an impending tag play (either a tag of a runner or a base).

Now consider R/S #13. The heading is "Crashing Into a Fielder With the Ball". The R/S goes on to explain the rule and makes several reference to "a defensive player holding the ball". It continues to give seven examples (A through G) of how this rule can apply. The first six are obviously refering to tag plays or impending tag plays (a fielder receiving a throw). None of them make any reference to a batted ball.

The last one contains the wording about a "wreck" when the runer, fielder and ball all arrive in the same spot. It doesn't say this applies on a batted ball.

Does it make sense that the actual rule isn't about a fielder fielding a batted ball, the heading of the R/S isn't about a fielder fielding a batted ball, the body of the text doesn't mention a fielder fielding a batted ball, the first six examples aren't about batted balls...then they would just tack on one single example (the one that you think applies to batted balls) without making some kind of notation that this one single example is different from all the rest and does include batted balls?

And, yes, R/S #33 does refer to R/S #13 (actually, it refers to R/S #14, but that is obviously a typo). But that doesn't mean that they are one and the same. R/S #33 refers the reader to R/S #13 to emphasize that this is a different form of interference covered by a different interpretation and different rule!

If the umpire in this game was trying to apply the "Crash Rule" as a justification for not calling interference, he was basing his call on the wrong rule.

[Crabby_Bob]

Look as I said in the first post, I would have INT. However, looking at the play over and over again I can see where the PU MAY have judged the ball, fielder, and runner coming together at the same time.

The only way this is not INT is if the PU judged that this was a deflected ball and the BR intentionally interferred with F3. 8.7.J.4

Per 8.7.J.4, I believe you mean unintentionally. The PU sees something, because he gives a (weak) dead ball signal.

[Bretman]

I saw that too. On the collision, the plate umpire raised both hands to about "ear level", then quickly dropped them. No way of knowing why he did that or what he was thinking.

(And I'd bet the rent MTR meant to type UNintentionally.)

[MTR]

Look as I said in the first post, I would have INT. However, looking at the play over and over again I can see where the PU MAY have judged the ball, fielder, and runner coming together at the same time.

The only way this is not INT is if the PU judged that this was a deflected ball and the BR intentionally interferred with F3. 8.7.J.4

Per 8.7.J.4, I believe you mean unintentionally. The PU sees something, because he gives a (weak) dead ball signal.

You are correct, thank you. Fat Finger Syndrome on a netbook can be a problem

And I agree, the umpire was thinking about something, just don't know what he may have seen or heard that caused him to pass on what he was going to call.

[vcblue]

Forget the Rules Supplement for a minute. The R/S's aren't playing rules and nothing in a R/S can supercede a playing rule.

The "Crash Rule" itself (8-7-Q) clearly refers to a play where the fielder has possession of the ball and the runner runs into them- in other words, an impending tag play (either a tag of a runner or a base).

Now consider R/S #13. The heading is "Crashing Into a Fielder With the Ball". The R/S goes on to explain the rule and makes several reference to "a defensive player holding the ball". It continues to give seven examples (A through G) of how this rule can apply. The first six are obviously refering to tag plays or impending tag plays (a fielder receiving a throw). None of them make any reference to a batted ball.

The last one contains the wording about a "wreck" when the runer, fielder and ball all arrive in the same spot. It doesn't say this applies on a batted ball.

Does it make sense that the actual rule isn't about a fielder fielding a batted ball, the heading of the R/S isn't about a fielder fielding a batted ball, the body of the text doesn't mention a fielder fielding a batted ball, the first six examples aren't about batted balls...then they would just tack on one single example (the one that you think applies to batted balls) without making some kind of notation that this one single example is different from all the rest and does include batted balls?

And, yes, R/S #33 does refer to R/S #13 (actually, it refers to R/S #14, but that is obviously a typo). But that doesn't mean that they are one and the same. R/S #33 refers the reader to R/S #13 to emphasize that this is a different form of interference covered by a different interpretation and different rule!

If the umpire in this game was trying to apply the "Crash Rule" as a justification for not calling interference, he was basing his call on the wrong rule.

Thank you for taking the time with me on this one. I got caught up in some circular logic or something.

[slugger]

I happen to know the umpire that was umpiring third during the MG game. Spoke with him about these two calls and he was very frustrated with his partner behind the plate. The guy behind the plate was from IL, ump at 1b from IN, ump at 3B KY. Guy I know said that the UIC spoke in their pre-tournament umpires meeting about how the tournament keeps coming back to IL b/c they have the best umpires in the region. (no comment on that..totally diff topic)..The guy behind the plate for this game is apparently a big dog in IL umpiring.

On the INT at 1B play, I was told that when the three umpires talked about the play, the 1B and 3B umpires said that from "their view" it appeared to be INT. The 3B ump that I know said that he was rotating to 2B and wasn't totally able to see the play so he could only give help by saying "If this occured, then x,y, or Z" I was told the 1B umpire told the home plate umpire he viewed it as INT completely. HP ump said he had "a crash play" and was leaving the play alone. He refused the help from his partner and said he was playing it as is.

In regards to the play at 3B that went against MG on the ball bobble. I was told from the 3B umpire that he was furious that his call got overturned and he specifically used language when talking to his partner behind the plate to tell him he had the right call (the original call was safe due to no ball control)..The 3B umpire went for help out of courtesy to the coach and was happy none the least when the "big dog from IL" overturned his call.

I wasn't there, so I can't comment..just telling you what an actual umpire on the field said.

I asked about the HR call and the HBP call as well. Here's what he told me was said behind the scenes:

Homerun call was made b/c the team that gave up the bomb complained and when the homeplate ump spoke to the UIC, he said that by the book, it was an out...(I argued with my ump friend about that and he said he agreed with me)

On the HBP, he said that the umpire felt like the team intentionally sent the girl up there to try and get hit (said the girl intentionally was sticking her leg out to get hit)..He said that the actual rule was carried out properly in terms of ball four/then sub on ejection. He said that the ejection was a result of warning for something such as "unsportsmanlike behavior" after being warned.

Again, just relaying what was said behind the scenes and actual on the field...i don't agree with some of the logic, but at least we know kinda what was being thought.

[cruzin90]

How about the worst call being in the jynx vs SJ Sting game. Jynx player hits a 2-run homer in the 7th inning to give Jynx a one run lead. Girl who hit home run as she is roundind bases gets high five from one of her players. Sting coach goes and argues that was an assist to the runner. Umpire agrees and rules home run no good and runner is out, no runs score. Score reverts back to 1-0 Sting wins and goes on to win the championship.
Might have not all facts as I was not at that game. Maybe someone can add to ths or give a better account.

Just trying to get a picture of this in my head ... As she rounded the bases she gets a high five ? ... Did this happen between home & first or third & home with a player not actively involved in the game or was it between the lines, i.e. between first & third? Was the player who high fived her R1 and did she pass her as the high fiving was happening ? Please splain if you can ...

She had already rounded the bases, the team was waiting for her at the plate...so if they did high five her before she stepped on the plate it was by centimeters!! how did the high five play a role in making a difference in a home run??

[Bretman]

Again, just relaying what was said behind the scenes and actual on the field...i don't agree with some of the logic, but at least we know kinda what was being thought.

Wow. I'm not sure if I agree with any of the logic behind those calls!

(*Disclaimer*) Making the assumption that the second-hand accounts we're getting are accurate...

On the first base play: I think we've already discredited the "Crash Rule" being applied here. If the first base umpire saw it and thought it was interference, why didn't he call it? I might guess that since the play was still less than halfway up the line, he didn't want to poach the plate umpire's call so he held off. That's usually a good rule of thumb. But if it's that blatant and obvious, and against a runner that is a few steps away from entering that umpire's "zone", I wouldn't fault the guy for calling it. Any umpire that sees this violation is allowed to call it. And I'm still wondering why the plate umpire gave a "dead ball" signal if he didn't think there was a rule violation.

On the third base play: One umpire can NEVER overrule another's call! This is right in the rule book and umpire manual and is a basic concept of umpiring. Even if the 3B umpire asked for help, he is the only one that can change the call, at his discretion. The other umpires can tell them what they saw, or what they think, but ONLY the umpire that made the initial can may change it. I'd be furious too if my partner pulled a move like that and took it upon himself to change my call. That is unsupported by rule or standard protocol.

On the home run: If the umpire really thought this was a rule violation (it's not) then he should have called it when he saw it- not after being "talked into it" by the other team. I'm shocked that he really thinks this is a rule and even more shocked that the UIC would tell him it is.

On the HBP: They did get something right. If a batter was ejected after receiving ball four, you could put in a sub and have that sub take her place on first base without further penalty. But I think that an ejection is a looong stretch here. The basic playing rules already prevent the offensive team from gaining by a batter purposely allowing herself to be hit by a pitch- she doesn't get the base award. The only way I could even imagine warning a team about this would be if they had repeatedly and obviously made efforts to let pitches contact them throughout the game- and even then, I'd be hard pressed to go that route. Just call the pitch a ball or strike according to it's relation to the strike zone and keep the batter at the plate (unless, of course, it's ball four- in which case the batter didn't gain any advantage by letting the pitch hit her anyway. If anything she has disadvantaged her own team by causing the ball to become dead, thus preventing any other runners on base from possibly advancing).