Opinions on an umpires call that decided a game

[jtk]

As a coach, I expect my runners to slide on a close plays. Even if ruled safe by obstruction I normally tell them that I expect them to be down the next time. At the same time, however, not sliding on this play would have been a valid option if, as the original poster indicated, it was a force play. Sliding slows the runner down and running through the plate would have gotten her to the plate faster. In this picture it really looks like the back side of the plate was open until the last second and running through the plate was not a bad choice at the time.

 

As an umpire, however, a runner's decision to slide or not to slide is, by rule, basically irrelevant as long as I wasn't making a call involving interference by the runner (and this wasn't one of those). The decision to slide or not to slide isn't allowed to be a part of my reasoning when determining obstruction.

 

I agree, the flight of the ball could have caused the catcher to adjust her stance. It appears that the ball beat the runner to the plate, the runner should not have been called safe by obstruction. The decision to slide or not to slide should have no bearing on the call.

[dore83]

My bad Mr. know it all

 

Dude.

 

Whatever

[coachcap]

I guess I can always expect to be corrected and I don't mind it's good to see people who love the game as much as I do. I apologize for my older interpretation as I drew on my old school days for that one... The term "plow" is all a matter of interpretation and the runner does have a right to the basepath, so long as they are not lowering a shoulder, bull-doging the catcher, or chopping at the ball the runner can run through the player impeding the basepath. So my original statement stands on that one, the players are playing at a high level and fast pace, I would never ask a player to slow up because a catcher is standing in the base path.

 

Based on the photo I can see two things, 1) The runner was trying to do exactly that but did so half heartedly and 2) The catcher clearly has the ball with the runner a step from the plate but I would say based on the current rules as quoted in this thread that the call could go either way. I don't like it but I can see it using those rules. Hard to expect a cathcer to play home like a 1st baseman.

[FridayMainEvent]

Things always are different when you are watching it live but here is my take on it. You can't blame all this on the catcher. Dore 83 hit it on the head, the runners responsibility as a runner is to try to avoid contact just like the catcher is not to block the base before having the ball. Is the catcher supposed to stand back and give the runner the base when it??™s close? We all know the answer to that. It looks like the catcher set up on the front part of the plate and the catch led her into the path. It??™s a lot like 1st base calls when the baseman goes into the base path what do you call? You have to see it to make the right call and even then people will think other wise. Me personally I wouldn??™t have called obstruction because the play was that close. I would have called it straight up & If I were behind the plate it wouldn??™t have set good with me that she didn??™t attempt to slide or something. Coaches tell their kids when it??™s that close you need to get down not go in standing. I know there is no slide rule before anyone fires back but we all know that collisions like that gets kids hurt.

 

I agree Kudos to the photographer.

 

 

/thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" /> Excellent assessment and that is exactly what happened! Her right foot was on the front of the plate as she has been taught (by me) for a force play allowing her to stretch if possible in the same fashion a first baseman would. The throw was up the third base line and caused her to step back with the left foot to receive it. As you stated, same thing with a throw to first pulling the first baseman into the base path. As some point in time common sense has to dictate an umpires decision. WHY would a catcher ever try to obstruct a plate on a force out?? It would be like the first baseman standing directly on the bag every play. Serves no purpose. I'd agree with the poster that stated incidental contact happened here and the out should of stood.

[coltsrule]

There is one more thing that should be considered here. The ball is in the glove, and the AWESOME picture appears to show that the ball is in the glove before the runner got to the plate. My question is, did this happen because the runner had to SLOW DOWN because of where the catcher was standing. If the runner did slow down, then that could be interpreted as having her progress impeded. If progress is impeded and there is contact, which is obviously the case, then obstruction should be called. I'm guessing that if the obstruction call had not been made, the offensive coaches and fans would be the ones posting their complaints on here. I just really wish I had been there, as other posters have said. I think I understand both sides of the argument here. We should all remember that all the umpires do is try to get the call correct, and they are not perfect. The call may have been missed, but I would certainly bet that it was not on purpose. How much longer did the game last because of that call? If the umpire simply wanted to go home, would that call have ever crossed his mind. I did look at the Shelbyville paper online and saw that there were THIRTY-TWO hits in the game, but the box score was not listed. Were there any errors? If so, did any of those errors cost either team any runs? If so, then it sounds to me like no one in Wartrace had a perfect night, except for maybe the young lady from Richland who hit the homers in both the 8th and the 9th innings. Wow! At any rate, I think I'll stop writing and just read what everyone else has to say from now on. Thanks.

[FridayMainEvent]

Hard to expect a cathcer to play home like a 1st baseman.

 

 

Good point and one that no one mentioned. I taught Aimee to make sure she has one foot firmly planted on the plate in a force out situation. The plate isn't elevated like a base, so you don't want to have the umpire wondering if she actually had contact with the plate or not. This in itself is going to cut down on the plate exposure to the runner. All it takes in an errant throw and you will have the scenario we are discussing. Again, common sense on the umps part must dictate the call sometimes.

[Turnadouble]

As a coach, I expect my runners to slide on a close plays. Even if ruled safe by obstruction I normally tell them that I expect them to be down the next time. At the same time, however, not sliding on this play would have been a valid option if, as the original poster indicated, it was a force play. Sliding slows the runner down and running through the plate would have gotten her to the plate faster. In this picture it really looks like the back side of the plate was open until the last second and running through the plate was not a bad choice at the time.

 

As an umpire, however, a runner's decision to slide or not to slide is, by rule, basically irrelevant as long as I wasn't making a call involving interference by the runner (and this wasn't one of those). The decision to slide or not to slide isn't allowed to be a part of my reasoning when determining obstruction.

 

See is this why I love open forums, everyone sees it different and that??™s always good for conversation.

I am the same way, if it??™s close my girls know not to go in standing up. I??™m sure one if not both these girls hit the ground. I agree with you it probably didn??™t go through her mind that the throw would bring the catcher across the plate and she thought she could run through. See you could argue interference by the runner if you really tried. What you said about ???Sliding slows the runner down and running through the plate would have gotten her to the plate faster.??? How can you hold the catcher accountable for obstruction and not hold the runner accountable for interference? The picture showed that the ball was at the plate first(I know in real time it was not as easy to tell). The ball is in her glove before the player hits the plate and in interference she has to try to avoid contact.

See I said if I were behind the plate I wouldn??™t have called obstruction or interference, this was one of those close plays that both players didn??™t expect and contact/obstruction wasn??™t intentional. I made my husband(Ump for 15yrs) come look at the picture and he said the same thing, the picture looks out. He made a good point it can??™t be obstruction if she has the ball. She has the right to make the out force or not if she has the ball and unfortunately it let her in the base path but she does have the ball. Do you just expect her to move and let the runner have the plate? The runner has the same opportunity to the plate but if the ball gets there before her she is out. That being said we both agree being there makes a big difference. It??™s so easy to say what we would do I??™m sure this was a hard call in the moment.

[GoingtoRightField]

Cascade11 we were just takin about umpires last night at the park. One of the comments were that sometimes umps just make a mistake. Well I was watchin this game this year and the ump in the field blew a call on interference of a runner goin to third. Then the same ump blows a call at third base on a tag. Well the ump in the field made the comments to me later that he only blew two calls in the game and he has seen him miss more than that in several games, but he is still making calls.

 

The T$$AA does not have a evaluation plan in for coaches to give a feed back to the T$$AA on their officals. Yes you can tell the supervisor of officals about your concerns but that is no guarantee you will get him/her removed or that he will become a better an offical.

 

I was at an game earlier this year and I heard a parent yell at the ump, no cussin, no disrespect, just a parent being a parent and this older ump stopped the game and threw the parent out of the game......talkin about having rabbit ears.....but this ump is known to all to have rabbit ears and he must ALWAYS be right. Hmmm my mama "Betty Sue" told me that the church that we went to that no one was perfect except one man I guess she must have not known about this ump because he is ALWAYS right to. /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

 

It was my understanding that the umpire could only eject someone "inside the fence", not spectators.

[MrNoitAll]

It was my understanding that the umpire could only eject someone "inside the fence", not spectators.

 

 

 

 

Yep he sure can and this ump will in a heart beat because of those rabbit ears that he has! The ump who was working with him that night said to a coach you can NEVER make him say I made a mistake like I said before my mama did not know about this man she only told us that Jesus was perfect but again she never met this ump! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

[FridayMainEvent]

It was my understanding that the umpire could only eject someone "inside the fence", not spectators.

 

 

 

There must be an "adminstrator" present at all TSSAA events. This is usually in the form of an AD, Principal, Vice Principal, or some other faculty member. Typically the umpire or ref, depending on the sport will inform the adminstrator a particular fan must be removed before the game can continue. He will not directly throw the fan out himself.

[MrNoitAll]

There must be an "adminstrator" present at all TSSAA events. This is usually in the form of an AD, Principal, Vice Principal, or some other faculty member. Typically the umpire or ref, depending on the sport will inform the adminstrator a particular fan must be removed before the game can continue. He will not directly throw the fan out himself.

 

 

 

Good friend Cascade11 (of course my best friend is birdman) what you have stated is some what true but the school normally appoints the coach as the school administrator for the game if they can not make it and most of the time they can not make it. But in this case the ump walked over to the fan and told him he was gone or his team would forfeit the game! We may not be talking about the same ump because this ump is short, stocky and has been umping for more years than most of us have been living! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

 

I do not think he realizes it is time to put his counter down and go off into the sunset. I have heard he is a great guy at his old job but when he gets on the field it is ONLY his way! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" /> Just like it is with /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />"Birdie" her way on no way but she is a good woman to me! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

[11sportsfan]

Just an observation, but in the picture, it looks like the catcher's left leg is "blocking" home plate, therefore not "allowing" the runner to touch the base.