Share Your Umpiring Thoughts

[Dick Allen]

Just out of curiosity, when is the last time this board, or really any board, got up in arms about a no call on an interference play at 2nd base?

 

A similar one is the "Tagging 2nd on a double play turn" call. Probably could call that on half or more of double plays, but no one ever gets pissed when it's not called.

There's been a lot of complaining everywhere about the non call yesterday. Anyone who has ever played above little league has had it beaten into their heads what their job is going into second on a potential DP ball. If you want to go by the rule book, just about every game there could be an interference call or 2, but the runner does have a right to slide or dive into the base. Cabrera grabbed the guy. That's going to get called every time. On the DPs, I've been in a couple of game threads were people were pretty pissed when it was blatantly obvious there was a phantom force out. If everyone just accepts that close is good enough, the play at first with AJ shouldn't have raised anyone's ire, because that was close, and the play with Crede shouldn't have pissed anyone off because it was close to a force, in fact, the umpire initially appeared to indicate Crede was out by a force out, and he did come within inches of tagging him.

[iamshack]

There's been a lot of complaining everywhere about the non call yesterday. Anyone who has ever played above little league has had it beaten into their heads what their job is going into second on a potential DP ball. If you want to go by the rule book, just about every game there could be an interference call or 2, but the runner does have a right to slide or dive into the base. Cabrera grabbed the guy. That's going to get called every time. On the DPs, I've been in a couple of game threads were people were pretty pissed when it was blatantly obvious there was a phantom force out. If everyone just accepts that close is good enough, the play at first with AJ shouldn't have raised anyone's ire, because that was close, and the play with Crede shouldn't have pissed anyone off because it was close to a force, in fact, the umpire initially appeared to indicate Crede was out by a force out, and he did come within inches of tagging him.

 

I think second base is the force play that the most leeway is given on a regular basis. But saying that because those other plays were force-out situations, and thus, close is good enough, is ridiculous.

[Dick Allen]

I think second base is the force play that the most leeway is given on a regular basis. But saying that because those other plays were force-out situations, and thus, close is good enough, is ridiculous.

I'm not saying close should be good enough. I personally get pissed when umpires give the leeway at 2B. What I'm saying is if you have no problem with it at second, you should have no problem with it at any other base.

[iamshack]

I'm not saying close should be good enough. I personally get pissed when umpires give the leeway at 2B. What I'm saying is if you have no problem with it at second, you should have no problem with it at any other base.

 

Well, it's more of an acceptance that there is nothing you can do about it if that's how they are going to call it. But when they begin calling plays like that at other bases, and you are not accustomed to it, it is extremely frustrating.

[YASNY]

Well, it's more of an acceptance that there is nothing you can do about it if that's how they are going to call it. But when they begin calling plays like that at other bases, and you are not accustomed to it, it is extremely frustrating.

 

Yes. The 'phantom tag' at second base is an accepted part of the game. Everybody knows about it, is familiar with it and everyone does it. A 'phantom tag' at the other bases is not considered the same way. You can argue about what should be or shouldn't be, but we are talking about what actually 'is'.

[Dick Allen]

Yes. The 'phantom tag' at second base is an accepted part of the game. Everybody knows about it, is familiar with it and everyone does it. A 'phantom tag' at the other bases is not considered the same way. You can argue about what should be or shouldn't be, but we are talking about what actually 'is'.

It was also "accepted in MLB for many years that if the ball beat the runner, the runner was out, pretty much no matter where the tag was. That has changed. The only problem I have with the 3 calls that went against the White Sox on Monday was the play at the plate, because the umpire made up his mind that Crede was out before the play occurred. It is not acceptable to grab an infielder when they are turning a DP. That's going to get called every time. Even Ozzie said it was the correct call. The play at first was tough for the umpire to see. It was hard to see with a better angle in slow motion. The argument that is used that Cabrera had the base, therefore no interference should be called is a weak one. If there was a pop up right over second and a runner was standing on second, he wouldn't be allowed to shove the fielder out of the way or grab him so he couldn't make the play.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Dick Allen

[almagest]

It was also "accepted in MLB for many years that if the ball beat the runner, the runner was out, pretty much no matter where the tag was. That has changed. The only problem I have with the 3 calls that went against the White Sox on Monday was the play at the plate, because the umpire made up his mind that Crede was out before the play occurred. It is not acceptable to grab an infielder when they are turning a DP. That's going to get called every time. Even Ozzie said it was the correct call. The play at first was tough for the umpire to see. It was hard to see with a better angle in slow motion. The argument that is used that Cabrera had the base, therefore no interference should be called is a weak one. If there was a pop up right over second and a runner was standing on second, he wouldn't be allowed to shove the fielder out of the way or grab him so he couldn't make the play.

 

Hate to keep getting dragged into this, but why is it ok to smash into a player with your legs or body, but not okay to grab his leg? The point was made earlier in this thread that if Cabrera had been turned around, and ran into Peralta with his legs, nothing would've been called. And I'm still not sure how grabbing someone's leg(s) is going to hinder a throw.

 

I also don't think anyone is arguing about Cabrera. I think the argument is that Thome had first base no matter what happened at second, and you can't hinder a non-existent play.

Edited April 2, 2008 by almagest

[Dick Allen]

Hate to keep getting dragged into this, but why is it ok to smash into a player with your legs or body, but not okay to grab his leg? The point was made earlier in this thread that if Cabrera had been turned around, and ran into Peralta with his legs, nothing would've been called. And I'm still not sure how grabbing someone's leg(s) is going to hinder a throw.

 

I also don't think anyone is arguing about Cabrera. I think the argument is that Thome had first base no matter what happened at second, and you can't hinder a non-existent play.

This isn't the NFL. If interference is called, it has nothing to do with whether Thome would have been safe or not. Its not like the ball had to be catchable deal in football. If you smash him with your leg, there is still a little doubt whether it was intentional or not, even though umpires and everyone know its the runner's job to take the guy out. Grabbing him or flailing your arms give no doubt. If he didn't call it, Wedge would have been out arguing, just like if it was the other way around, Ozzie would have been out there arguing it should have been interference, Hawk too.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Dick Allen

[almagest]

This isn't the NFL. If interference is called, it has nothing to do with whether Thome would have been safe or not. Its not like the ball had to be catchable deal in football. If you smash him with your leg, there is still a little doubt whether it was intentional or not, even though umpires and everyone know its the runner's job to take the guy out. Grabbing him or flailing your arms give no doubt. If he didn't call it, Wedge would have been out arguing, just like if it was the other way around, Ozzie would have been out there arguing it should have been interference, Hawk too.

 

Maybe that's the way the umpires interpret the rule, but that just doesn't make sense to me. The word "interfere" has a pretty non-ambiguous meaning, and I don't see how Cabrera was interfering with any possible play. I still feel it was a poor judgment call, especially in the context of this game.

[WSoxMatt]

Renteria just slid into 2nd on a DP break and grabbed at the Royal 2B's leg and it was not called automatically...

[iamshack]

James Loney absolutely destroyed Ray Durham last night, almost injuring him, and no interference was called.

 

I understand what the people saying OCab's actions were blatantly interference in the fact that they were so obvious. But the way the rule is written (and the purpose of the rule), and the way it is interpreted and called simply do not mesh.

[daa84]

I really have to give mlb credit. after i emailed them about this game, they were nothing but professional in how they handled it and responded. It really shows that they actually care what the fans have to say. I got this email back from Mike Port today.

 

Subject: FW: PLAY ANALYSIS-GAME OF MARCH 31`.

 

You were one of a couple of fans who inquired about plays in the game of March 31. Please note that due to manpower, and an increase in the number of plays we look at as the season goes on we are not always able to respond to inquiries in this fashion. It is just that given that your inquiry comes at the beginning of the season, we are able to get back to you.

 

We appreciate your interest and concern.

 

Another point. The plays you inquired about were reviewed by one of our umpire supervisors who umpired close to 2,000 games at the Major League level. Sometimes such review leads to suspicion of umpire favoritism. However, like all in this department, supervisors work with active umpires to assist them in getting their calls correct. Sometimes this leads to correction and constructive criticism; but the correct call is what we all aspire to. Nonetheless, it is a fact of life that umpires do miss calls and pitches. It is just that, given their ability at the Major League level, their "misses" are held to an unbelievable minimum, given the number of calls they deal with.

 

Here is the supervisor's analysis:

 

1. Play in the second inning involving Orlando Cabrera. Unfortunately did not see play or get video.

 

2. Top of the 7th inning. Pierzynski grounds to shortstop who throws to 1B. Throw pulls first baseman off the bag. Umpire calls runner "out". Viewed at multiple camera angels.

 

The momentum of the first baseman toward right field most definitely forced the first baseman to pull his foot off the bag. However, his foot was on the base at the time of the catch, and then, by momentum, his foot followed his body and came off of the base. Oft-times, fans see the foot off of the base and assume the timing was such that the foot was not in contact with the base as the catch was made. Having been on the field and having experienced this play many times, I can appreciate what the umpire saw from his angle and understand why he called the runner out. Certainly the play relates to where the first baseman is positioned only at the time of the catch, which is where the ball met leather. I have reviewed this play from different angles, in slow motion, and still frames and believe the umpire was correct in his judgment.

 

3.Top of the 8th inning. Cabrera grounds to shortstop who throws home to try to prevent Crede from scoring. Even seen from several angles and with slow motion views, it is still difficult to evaluate that the tag was applied. An inconclusive call given available video which it must be (at least) allowed could have been "missed". Nonetheless, a tough play for an umpire as it is difficult for one to get into a more desirable position in order to view this particular type of play (the throw coming in from the infield).

 

4. Top of the 8th inning. (Next play). Jim Thome grounds to second baseman who throws to shortstop to try to turn double play. Slide by Cabrera is called interference.

 

The premise of the interpretation is to judge the intent of the runner; in this case (from video) what the runner's intentions appeared to be as he slid into second base with arms outstretched to their limits and "grabbing" at the shortstop, and making contact with his body. The interpretation of this play in the Major League Umpire Manual is as follows:

 

"If in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of an opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate."

 

Also,

 

"A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bonafide effort to reach and stay on the base, may be called out for the interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called."

 

From the video-the runner did not meet the requirements to be ruled legal in his actions. Thus, the double play was called.

 

Hopefully, the above will be helpful in responding to your questions. We understand how a great many of Baseball's rules can be misread or misinterpreted as our rules are (sometimes) not written with the greatest clarity. For this reason, Major League umpires are also provided with a manual that goes into greater detail as to how some rules are to be applied.

 

With best regards, and thanks again for your interest.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm impressed. That's a nice little response.

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm impressed. That's a nice little response.

 

So much for it not meaning anything... I agree nice response! That is a classy move by MLB to respond personally to these emails.

[knightni]

So much for it not meaning anything... I agree nice response! That is a classy move by MLB to respond personally to these emails.

I bet that they cut-and-pasted that reply a few hundred times.

 

 

[Be Good]

I bet that they cut-and-pasted that reply a few hundred times.

Yea I got the same email today and last week, after I emailed him with specific details.