Ok, So I was all excited to be able to join Jim Bonaparte for his umping debut in the 55's. I had a high school game which ran late so I missed most of the game, but that certainly didnt mean that I missed all the action. Jim was doing great but I was glad I was able to help because what a game it turned out to be.
Heres the setup: Marlins vs Yankees in the 55's. Yankees are up in the bottom of the last inning (because of darkness). Bases loaded with the winning run on third and 2 outs. It was a very exciting game up to this point. The batter hits a ball towards the shortstop Eddie. Ray was running from second to third. The ball and Eddie and Ray all arrived at the same time between 2nd and 3rd.
Everybody had some decisions to make. Ray had to decide if he was going to run around Eddie or try to block his view. He tried to block his view and then run out of the way. Very legal on Rays part. Eddie meanwhile had to decide if he was going to try and field the ball, which would have caused a collision between him and Ray or just stop. Both would have been fine and would have made for an easy call. But Eddie chose to try something else, and it was the first time I ever saw it. He reached out and pushed Ray out of the way.
Anyone think they no what the right call is?
Heres the call I made. I called Ray out for interference. I knew the rule and it didnt surprised how many guys didnt know the rule. The fielder has the right of way to the ball no matter what. Even if he decides not to crash into the runner but instead push the runner out of the way. As odd as that sounds, thats the rule. The runner has to get out of his way. The game ended in a tie.
Now heres the amazing thing. If that had been a 18 game or a 35 game or maybe even a 45 game, there would have been yelling screaming name calling and overall it would have been a major **** storm. Thats not what happened with the 55's. Yes there was a little discussion going on, and rightly so. It was a very odd play. But the managers kept their cool and the players respected that it was the managers discussion to have. It was classy and just perfect. Both teams were gentlemen. Thats what it means to be the example you want others to follow.
Thank you to Ray and to Eddie who coincidentally were not only involved in the play but are also the managers. Thank you to the Marlins and the Yankees for putting things in perspective and allowing to night to end as gracefully as possible. And good luck to Wayne Newcomb who took one off his head and had to go to the hospital. Our prayers for a speedy recovery go with him.
BTW, Since I never saw that type of play before I called Mark Fitch and Jay Miner and ran it by them. Both said without a doubt that I made the right call.
It was a tough break for the Yankees, but the call was right and maybe ending in a tie was the best outcome for such a wild game..
I respect the call. It was a tough one. And thank you for calling afterwards and explaining how you checked with the umpiring chief and a rules guru. You are definitely a class act and try to get all the calls correct. If you are not sure you make your call, but you follow up - which is much more than many other umpires do.
But I still have to disagree with the call. I cite a note in Rule 7.09. Here is the complete rule, but please pay attention to the highlighted note 7.09 (i) comment...
7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when -- (a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball; (b) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out; (c) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates; (d) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate; Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders. (e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner. (f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference. (g) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base. (h) With a runner on third base, the base coach leaves his box and acts in any manner to draw a throw by a fielder; (i) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.
Rule 7.09(i) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. Obstruction by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such right of way is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base obstruction shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.
(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference. PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.
The play in question, the fielder, I believe, took "license" to intentionally knock me down without making a play on the ball.
Again - I respect the call and I have gotten many opinions on it. It was and is a strange play. I was "gaming" it by trying to block Ed's view. At the last possible moment I took a step towards third, felt two hands on my back, and went to the ground.
The play is done and you and Jim did a fine job. I just need to point out I don't think it was correct. I do not want other players thinking all they have to do is go knocking down runners without attempting to field the ball to get interference. My opinion - this was a fielder's obstruction.
I can understand each interpretation of the play and, not having been there to actually see it transpire, can only go on what each of the two posts say. Having done some umpiring, I can see how interesting this play really is. The rule simply states that the runner must avoid the fielder and when anyone tries to "game" the fielder by trying to block his view he runs the risk of even accidentally bumping into the fielder and being called out for interference. Since the ball, the runner, and the fielder arrived at the same time, the "failing to avoid" part of the rule applies as far as runner interference. If the ball had passed the fielder and then the runner was pushed down, that would have been fielder's interference. It gets a little trickier if the ball was ten feet in front of the fielder and he actually stopped to push the runner down while the runner had stopped to let the fielder go by before continuing to get the ball. I think that could also be considered fielder's interference. Again, this is all in the judgement of the umpire. Ray's point on the full reading of 709.i is a fair request. The key word is intentionally interfering with the runner and if the ball, runner, and fielder arrived at the same I think an umpire would be hard-pressed to say that the fielder intentionally tripped or pushed the runner down. I think the runner "must avoid" part of the rule still applies. Again, not having been at the game I can only go on what is in the two posts. Finally, this is not subject to appeal at any time because it is a judgement call. I would like to congratulate both teams for taking a sportsmanlike attitude towards the play. Believe it or not, probably the person most concerned with not making any "errors" on the field is the umpire.
There was no appeal or protest of the call. I only wanted to create a discussion. As I said - I respect the call though I disagree with it (and why wouldn't I disagree? I was called out! None of us make any outs!).
One thing that my father and many coaches have taught me is that this game is "BaseBALL", not "BaseRUNNER" or "BaseBAG". The first order of business is to field and secure the ball. The game revolves around it. The rules talk about playing the ball. Before anything is done, you need to have the ball. Plain. Simple.
My whole contention is that Ed gave up his right as a fielder when he intentionally played the runner and not the ball. I gamed it trying to get an advantage for my team by blocking his view. If he had bumped me with one hand while even trying to make a half-hearted attempt at the ball, I would more than agree that I was in the wrong - I interefered with the fielder. But I was pushed with two hands, one behind each shoulder. How do you field a ball in that way?
The game is done and I am not arguing the call. I just find this to be one of the very interesting nuances of the game. I enjoy the discussion. I truly love this stuff.
Again - Joe and Jim did a fine job under some very odd circumstances. I'm just having fun talking about it (as anyone who has been around me the past few days can attest - though I think they would probably call it "obsessing"!)
And in a sense the umpires ALWAYS get it right! I love Joe's enthusiasm for the craft. We have many fine umpires and I love them all (this is the butt-kissing part of my post for future calls).
funny name really; Base--ball? I get handball, basketball and dogdeball. but using the same logic it wouldn't be football it'd be goalpost ball. shouldn't it be batball? umpires have a hard job. For us that play and then ump its like learning the game over in a newly created position. you have to think about where to go in differing situations ,what to look for ,and make calls and interpretative calls on the fly. All that on top of controlling the game's tenor if need be. This is why we pay them , while we still pay to play. jreel
