Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 On the missed catcher's interference call on Steve Finley, Finley hurt his team. Here is how. Catcher's interference is a delayed dead ball situation. It is not an immediate dead ball. If called, the team on offense may elect to take the result of the play instead of the penalty of the catcher's interference. In this situation, as McCarver noted, Finley should have been awarded 1B with the runner on 1B moving to 2B and the runner on 3B staying put since he was not forced home. The bases would have been loaded with one out. Alternately, if Finley hustled down the line rather than looking back he would have been safe at 1B. In that case, the runner from 3B would have scored and the out would have been recorded at 2B for the 2nd out. The Angels COULD have elected to take that play, giving up the out for the run. If they chose the interference call, they would have the bases loaded with one out, but they would be taking a run off the board. No one knows what they would have chosen, but just by hustling Finley could have an RBI and the Angels be down 3-2 at that point and within one run. Since the call is a delayed dead ball, the umpire should have held his arm straigh out with a closed fist indicating the intereference, but allowing the play to continue to it's completion. So there was no reason for Finley to look back. The umpire does not verbalize anything in that situation and the ball is not dead, so Finley's job is to bust his ass down the line. Here is why it is important for him to do so. What happens if Igughi throws the ball into LF, making an error on the play. By rule, if the batter reaches 1B by hit or error AND all other runners move up one base, the interference is ignored and never becomes an issue. So in reality, by Finley trying to be the umpire, he cost his team a run. Yes the call was missed. But if he does his job, the Angels score another run there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 15, 2005 -> 07:50 PM) On the missed catcher's interference call on Steve Finley, Finley hurt his team. Here is how. Catcher's interference is a delayed dead ball situation. It is not an immediate dead ball. If called, the team on offense may elect to take the result of the play instead of the penalty of the catcher's interference. In this situation, as McCarver noted, Finley should have been awarded 1B with the runner on 1B moving to 2B and the runner on 3B staying put since he was not forced home. The bases would have been loaded with one out. Alternately, if Finley hustled down the line rather than looking back he would have been safe at 1B. In that case, the runner from 3B would have scored and the out would have been recorded at 2B for the 2nd out. The Angels COULD have elected to take that play, giving up the out for the run. If they chose the interference call, they would have the bases loaded with one out, but they would be taking a run off the board. No one knows what they would have chosen, but just by hustling Finley could have an RBI and the Angels be down 3-2 at that point and within one run. Since the call is a delayed dead ball, the umpire should have held his arm straigh out with a closed fist indicating the intereference, but allowing the play to continue to it's completion. So there was no reason for Finley to look back. The umpire does not verbalize anything in that situation and the ball is not dead, so Finley's job is to bust his ass down the line. Here is why it is important for him to do so. What happens if Igughi throws the ball into LF, making an error on the play. By rule, if the batter reaches 1B by hit or error AND all other runners move up one base, the interference is ignored and never becomes an issue. So in reality, by Finley trying to be the umpire, he cost his team a run. Yes the call was missed. But if he does his job, the Angels score another run there. This is one of the best posts ever on soxtalk. Great job Rex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 15, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) Yes the call was missed. Great post Rex. Fox, ESPN, and the rest of the world will unfortunately only see this much of that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Spot on Rex. But once again, the Angel fans will have something to complain about, and with justification. I hate this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 The Angels have certainly not gotten the breaks on the calls, but they also haven't done things themselves to put them in a position to win this series. They aren't hitting much at all, can't string hits together when they do, aren't making good pitches, etc. I knew when they lost Colon that the lack of depth in their rotation would show itself in the middle of the series. Lastly, someone posted (perhaps on another board) a day or two ago, that Santana may have problems because he has had time to think about his start tonight. When he came in and shut down the Yankees, it was in an emergency situation and he could only react, he didn't have time to think about the magnitude of the situation. He's known for several days he would be starting this game, so he has had time to think about it. Whoever indicated that might be a problem for him was dead on. I wish I could remember who it was to give them credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 15, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) I wish I could remember who it was to give them credit. I thought it, does that count? Rex, btw, you are a soxtalk treasure, thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 Stop, you're making me blush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 I'm really getting sick of the announcers dwelling on the umpiring. At some point, they need to get over it. The Sox are making the plays and the Angels are not. In Joe Buck's defense (and you don't know how hard it is for me to defend him), he did stop and give the Sox credit for making all of the plays following the controversial calls. That quieted them down, at least for a few minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 There were some bad calls tonight, but those didn't cost the Angels the game, the Sox outplayed them in every aspect of the game. Finley has no excuse for not running that play out, in any circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Rex Jon Kruk made that statement on ESPN. Not sure if some one else posted it, but that is where you might have seen it. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 All this umpire crap reminds me of one thing: Remember when Buerhle was kicked out of a game for hitting a guy before he got through 6 innings? The Sox were losing that game at the time, but what ended up happening? They came back in the next inning and, as Hawk stated "They got that one for Mark." I don't see the Angels going after it. They are giving up instead of trying harder. The Sox were winning only 3-1 when the interference call was missed, and they lost 8-2. Is that really the umps fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Fireworks Man Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Players are supposed to play and leave the umpiring to the umpires. Apparently, Josh Paul and Finley don't remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 16, 2005 -> 03:11 AM) I'm really getting sick of the announcers dwelling on the umpiring. At some point, they need to get over it. The Sox are making the plays and the Angels are not. In Joe Buck's defense (and you don't know how hard it is for me to defend him), he did stop and give the Sox credit for making all of the plays following the controversial calls. That quieted them down, at least for a few minutes. Especially the first part. I know eventually they mouthed the 'Sox made the plays' line, but after 15 minutes of shrilling themselves hoarse, I don't give them too much credit for that. It's become absurd. Why weren't the announcers screaming for catcher's interference before the commercial break? If it was so obvious, I'm sure they must have noticed it immediately, not just when they reviewed it to see what Finley was pointing about. Yeah, there were mistakes. Too many, absolutely. But catcher's interference is a difficult thing to notice, especially when the batter makes contact. And the play at second -- you're not often going to get that call when you're lunging across the bag like that. Often a pitch will look pretty good, but the catcher will have to move his mitt -- and the comment is merely, that you're not gonna get many calls on plays like that. But when you're diving at the throw on the steal and tagging someone on the back of the leg, it's 'another play added to the list'. Why are they so hungry to stain these wins? Even in a drubbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 When it is one call, it goes away quickly. I cannot remember a series where the umpiring has been such a factor and all one sided. If this was happening against the Sox, instead of for the Sox, we would be enraged they aren't showing it enough. I don't think any team has a fan base with more of a chip on our shoulders than the White Sox. We should be the first group to understand the coverage and the Angel fan's angst. We have benefited from calls, it doesn't seem to be even. We have also created our own "luck" and made these chances pay off. That is the mark of a championship team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 16, 2005 -> 07:27 AM) When it is one call, it goes away quickly. I cannot remember a series where the umpiring has been such a factor and all one sided. If this was happening against the Sox, instead of for the Sox, we would be enraged they aren't showing it enough. I don't think any team has a fan base with more of a chip on our shoulders than the White Sox. We should be the first group to understand the coverage and the Angel fan's angst. We have benefited from calls, it doesn't seem to be even. We have also created our own "luck" and made these chances pay off. That is the mark of a championship team. As it was pointed out once by Buck and the crew, yes, we've gotten a few breaks. However, the umpires weren't the ones to throw the 0-2 pitch to Joe Crede Wednesday. The umpires weren't the ones that rolled the solid double play. The umpires weren't the ones that got Pods around to score last night. The Sox are doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Oct 16, 2005 -> 07:30 AM) As it was pointed out once by Buck and the crew, yes, we've gotten a few breaks. However, the umpires weren't the ones to throw the 0-2 pitch to Joe Crede Wednesday. The umpires weren't the ones that rolled the solid double play. The umpires weren't the ones that got Pods around to score last night. The Sox are doing it. Absolutely we have done an amazing job of jumping on these chances. Still, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you really think we would have threads stating, well Jenks should have made a better pitch? We'd be as livid as Angel fans, maybe more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 16, 2005 -> 07:52 AM) Absolutely we have done an amazing job of jumping on these chances. Still, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you really think we would have threads stating, well Jenks should have made a better pitch? We'd be as livid as Angel fans, maybe more. Oh absolutely, I agree. I'm positive we'd be livid. I know we're saying this all with an impossible to rid bias. I just don't think anything that happened yesterday was going to make a difference in the score. Game 2, I feel we got a huge break that changed everything that happened in that game. These things do obviously happen though, and it's about time the Sox got some love going their way from the baseball gods. We've been waiting for too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 What bothers me is this stuff is over shadowing what has been an incredible pitching performance and defensive performance for the Sox. We're not going to get the respect the team deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Yes, the Sox have been getting quite a few breaks, but all of you are right--the Sox are making them count. I saw on one Angels message board after the call that was someone was calling it "Black Sox Two".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 If the shoe were on the other foot, personally I would be livid at AJ for not tagging their hitter that just struck out and I would be pissed at our batter that wasn't running hard to 1B. Players have to play, not umpire. Finley has to know that is a delayed dead ball situation, not an immediate dead ball. He hurt his team, plain and simple. Yes the call was missed, but let's not excuse Finley for screwing up. Then again, that's just the way I look at things. From both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 Tex, the way the game is covered is different than it used to be. TV announcers did not used to blatantly call umpires wrong and then beat it until it became more dead than a horse. Most times they would say "he looked out to me" or "that was really close" rather than making judgements and tossing out blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 Lastly for anyone that likes sources rather than my brain, here is the rule straight out of Official Baseball Rules.... 6.08© © The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference. If catcher's interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter runner missed first base, or a runner misses his next base, he shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 7.04 (d). Examples of plays the manager might elect to take: 1. Runner on third, one out, batter hits fly ball to the outfield on which the runner scores but catcher's interference was called. The offensive manager may elect to take the run and have batter called out or have runner remain at third and batter awarded first base. 2. Runner on second base. Catcher interferes with batter as he bunts ball fairly sending runner to third base. The manager may rather have runner on third base with an out on the play than have runners on second and first. In situations where the manager wants the "interference" penalty to apply, the following interpretation shall be made of 6.08 ©: If the catcher (or any fielder) interferes with the batter, the batter is awarded first base. If, on such interference a runner is trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third base, the ball is dead and the runner on third scores and batter is awarded first base. If the catcher interferes with the batter with no runners trying to score from third on a squeeze or steal, then the ball is dead, batter is awarded first base and runners who are forced to advance, do advance. Runners not attempting to steal or not forced to advance remain on the base they occupied at the time of the interference. If the catcher interferes with the batter before the pitcher delivers the ball, it shall not be considered interference on the batter under Rule 6.08 ©. In such cases, the umpire shall call "Time" and the pitcher and batter start over from "scratch." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Looks like one guy agrees with you ---Finley. Mea Kulpa? Ump off the hook October 16, 2005 BY TONI GINNETTI Staff Reporter ANAHEIM, Calif. -- A 40-year-old veteran of 14 major-league seasons, Steve Finley never had been involved in a catcher's interference call -- but he knew it happened to him in the second inning Saturday. "It felt like somebody grabbed my bat,'' the Los Angeles Angels center fielder said. White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski even owned up to it after the game, but the call wasn't made by plate umpire Ron Kulpa. The Angels were down 3-1 with runners at second and third and one out, but instead of a rally, Finley grounded into an inning-ending double play. "He said he didn't hear it,'' Finley said of Kulpa's non-call. "I probably should have just kept running to first instead of looking back and pointing. I might have beaten the throw, and the run would have scored.'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Finish the play and THEN cry. That is the lesson to be learned for Anaheim. Finley was out by a half-step after whining down the line. He'd have easily beaten the throw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 When Iguchi CLEARLY didn't touch 2nd, that was a chance for the Angels to do some damage. Did they? No. Quit your b****ing and play the game. Umpires don't make you look flat. Umpires don't run down to first for you. Umpires don't bat for you. When you go home and kiss your World Series ring, remember THESE White Sox weren't even BORN the last time they made it to the Big BIG Show. So shut it and play game 5 like you mean it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.