Umpire Odds & Ends: Instances of Interference

Apr 09, 2011 22:35

As one of our UEFL commenters noted, "it's rare you see interference at the major league level... and tonight it was called three times!" Let's review ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 25

anonymous April 10 2011, 15:13:41 UTC
I'm a Jays fan (who tried to stay up until 2am to watch the rest of the game but just couldn't) and when I saw the replay the first time, it was the correct call. Escobar, the runnner, altered the route the 3rd baseman took to get to the ball, and it should have been interference.

Davidson is a terrible umpire... but he was right on this one.

Reply


anonymous April 10 2011, 18:03:37 UTC
Vanover got his correct 100%

The Davidson call is correct..I dislike Bob,and I think he's a terrible umpire,but that was a very good call..

The Hickox one is dicey. In my opinion, it looks like Casey ran into the runner, and given that it was the SS ball to field,was Casey making that late decision to run over that direction really necessary? I know many here will chew me up for it,but I'm not so sure Ed Hickox made the correct call.

Reply

anonymous April 10 2011, 20:19:37 UTC
Well at least Hickox is definitive and makes a decision. Seems your not quite there yet. If you decide 1 way or the other please post again so we can see the arguments you had to finally make the decision.

Reply

anonymous April 10 2011, 20:27:57 UTC
Harsh. But agreed, Hickox had the right call there. In fact, all three umpires got it right. Interference can be very subtle (Davidson's case) or very obvious (Hickox's case), it's still the same infraction and deserves the same enforcement.

Reply

anonymous April 10 2011, 21:20:14 UTC
My apologies...I didn't realize I sounded so undecided.

I have watched the video several times since my initial post and although I still think that was the SS play and Blake didn't have a reason to running directly toward the runner, by definition that is interference and Hickox got it right.

Hope that clarifies it a little more.

Reply


Good call anonymous April 10 2011, 19:45:38 UTC
I think all 3 got the play correct. The runner is entitled to the base path unless a fielder is attempting to make a play on a batted ball. If this is the case the runner must concede to the fielder. There does not have to be contact or the possibility of a play being completed. The runners altered the path of the fielders, therefore we have interference in each of these instances.

Reply


tim tchida ejection anonymous April 10 2011, 22:19:24 UTC
hey why dont you have the ejection on coffey from washington? he was ejected by tschida!

Reply

Re: tim tchida ejection cascreamindude April 10 2011, 22:44:35 UTC
Like all ejections, Tim Tschida (1) was posted on the day when it occurred, April 6, 2011. Click here to view this ejection.

Reply


jontlaw April 11 2011, 18:40:43 UTC
I like these calls a lot. I run across a lot of umpires and coaches who think that interference requires definitive contact. I'm glad to see examples otherwise.

I notice that Tim Tschida's crew has had a lot of action early in the season.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up