- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Catcher's Interference Rule?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:42 am to ifyoubuildit
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:42 am to ifyoubuildit
quote:
What does the rule book say about the original judgement call on the field being overturned after the players left the field and a 5 minute commercial break, only after the other manager complained?
ok, so digging through the rule book.
anything I can find on this at all is written with pretty vague wording, so kinda tough to say the rules were "broken" because they aren't specific enough.
the text that seems relevant:
quote:
a? NCAA rule 3-6-g states, “No umpire shall criticize or interfere with another umpire’s decision, unless asked by the one making it; however, if there is a misinterpretation of a rule, it should be brought to the attention of the umpire-in-chief?” Therefore, except in special situations such as those outlined in the next paragraph. (none of the examples listed have anything to do with the type of play that we're discussing), the umpire making the call must be the one to seek assistance
of a partner.
doesn't say anything about the timing of it. and we don't know who initiated the conference.
quote:
Umpires are not required to seek help on plays on which they are 100 % confident in their judgment and view of the play? Head coaches are not entitled to a second opinion when the calling umpire is certain their decision is correct? On the other hand, and contrary to past practice, umpires are not to “die with a call” in cases in which a) the calling umpire is not 100 % certain they are correct; and b) another umpire has additional information that could lead to a proper ruling? Both NCAA philosophy and umpire integrity – consistent with NCAA rules – dictate that calls are reversed in this situation?
again, nothing on the timing.
and while it says the coach question the call is not "entitled" to another opinion, the rule doesn't outlaw him getting one either.
Here is the closest one to our situation:
quote:
When an umpire seeks help, they should do so shortly after making the original call? They should not have a lengthy discussion with the head coach or others and then ask for help? If the calling umpire seeks help, they should include other umpire(s) who would likely have the best position to see the elements of the play? This conversation must take place away from players or coaches? If a crew chief deems it necessary, they can, at their discretion, bring together the entire crew? All umpires involved should meet at once; multiple meetings unnecessarily delay the game? Crew chiefs can conduct conferencesand are expected to ensure that NCAA philosophies are given priority over any single umpire’s pride?
this is what I mean about it being "vague"
they use the world SHOULD instead of the word SHALL multiple times.
meaning it's suggested to do it a certain way, but not necessarily required.
and the rule never specifies or defines "shortly" to say how much time is too much time between a call and a conference.
So to me that means that while they SHOULDN'T have that discussion with a head coach and then the conference, the rule doesn't say that they CAN'T.
IMO, that needs to be clarified better than it is. I think that allows too much wiggle room here.
and there is this one that I think kinda sides with us and seems like the one we'd have the best leg to stand on in making this a rules issue. (I bolded stuff for emphasis)
quote:
Judgment calls, which have traditionally not been subject to reversal, include steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire’s knowledge, as discussed above); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and foot is not pulled); balls and strikes (other than check swings)? This practice shall continue? Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems?
so judgement calls are traditionally NOT subject to reversal, and that practice SHALL continue.
so what did the SC coach ask them to discuss?
and what did they discuss during the conference?
IF they discussed at all wether or not Neal "stepped on or in front of the plate", then that's discussing a judgement call, and seems to be against the rules.
IF they all agreed that he did "step on or in front of the plate" (which I don't see how that is even a possibility that anyone saw him do that) and all they discussed was implementation of the Catcher's interference rule, then I guess technically speaking a rule wasn't broken.
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:50 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
so what did the SC coach ask them to discuss?
and what did they discuss during the conference?
IF they discussed at all wether or not Neal "stepped on or in front of the plate", then that's discussing a judgement call, and seems to be against the rules.
IF they all agreed that he did "step on or in front of the plate" (which I don't see how that is even a possibility that anyone saw him do that) and all they discussed was implementation of the Catcher's interference rule, then I guess technically speaking a rule wasn't broken.
To me, there's no possible way they just all agreed that Neal did "step on or in front of the plate", when minutes before, a call of out was made by the home plate umpire(who if he had seen Neal step on or in front of the plate, wouldn't have called the out). Additionally, the umpires were not discussing the call in between innings UNTIL the SC coach brought it up way later.
Also, Jay is very measured in what he says to the media, always. I assume he would not say repeatedly that the umpires didn't see it unless they had specifically told him that.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:52 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:53 am to kengel2
quote:
Batter bails on the pitch as soon as the runner takes off. If the batter doesnt bail out so fast, I could see catchers interference. Batter is bailing before the pitch is even thrown.
None of this matters for CI rule, its all about does the catcher give the batter the attempt of swinging at the pitch, Neal did not.
Again going back to my post that broke this down. Since it was a pitch, and Neal was in front of the hitter, he gave him no attempt to swing at the pitch, doesnt matter if batter stepped away or not.
If Herring had stepped off then thrown home, it wouldnt have been CI. For it not have been CI either that would have had to happen or Neal stays behind the plate and receives the pitch since it was a pitch.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:55 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:53 am to frogpond11
quote:
To me, there's no possible way they just all agreed that Neal did "step on or in front of the plate", when minutes before, a call of out was made by the home plate umpire(who if he had seen Neal step on or in front of the plate, wouldn't have called the out).
agreed.
but since we don’t have mics all these discussions are secrets, so we have no idea what was said in them.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:59 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
None of this matters for CI rule, its all about does the catcher give the batter the attempt of swinging at the pitch, Neal did not.
Again going back to my post that broke this down. Since it was a pitch, and Neal was in front of the hitter, he gave him no attempt to swing at the pitch, doesnt matter if batter stepped away or not.
If Herring had stepped off then thrown home, it wouldnt have been CI. For it not have been CI either that would have had to happen or Neal stays behind the plate and receives the pitch since it was a pitch.
Again, this wasn't considered during the game or explained as part of the decision making process afterwards when they went to great lengths to try and explain the pertinent rules. Therefore, moot point.
I agree, in a world where all the rules were taken into account, this one makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than what was presented. But, it doesn't seem that's the case.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:00 am to frogpond11
quote:
Again, this wasn't considered during the game or explained as part of the decision making process afterwards when they went to great lengths to try and explain the pertinent rules. Therefore, moot point.
We dont know what all was considered, we dont get all the information.
But the rule obviously exists in a way Neal broke it and what should have happened, happened.
The problem is the announcers went off on a completely irrelevant tangent to 1 part of the rule when there were others that exisited.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:01 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
To me, there's no possible way they just all agreed that Neal did "step on or in front of the plate", when minutes before, a call of out was made by the home plate umpire(who if he had seen Neal step on or in front of the plate, wouldn't have called the out).
agreed.
but since we don’t have mics all these discussions are secrets, so we have no idea what was said in them.
Which brings me back to the main point, this whole thing seems completely unfair and not by the rules, and even against common sense, yet it just seems like it's just being swept under the rug.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:13 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
In the end, it was the correct call and the rule that everyone kept bringing up is irrelevant, it's 1 rule, but there's other catcher's interference rules. Neal ultimately did not let the batter any attempt to swing at the pitch, and it was a pitch being the key there, therefore it's catcher's interference and because someone was trying to steal home, it's a balk and the runner is awarded home.
quote:
b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder (usually the catcher) that hinders
or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch?
if the batter doesn't attempt to hit it, you have not "hindered or prevented" him from hitting it.
catcher's interference is ONLY a balk using the specific rule everyone else keeps quoting.
quote:
2) Any runner attempting to steal on a catcher’s interference with the batter’s swing shall be awarded the base the runner is attempting to reach? If a runner is not attempting to steal on the catcher’s interference, the individual is not entitled to the next base, unless forced to advance because of the batter being awarded first base?
Exception—If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play or a steal of home, the batter is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference?
and this rule specifically states interfering with a swing. which there was no swing.
no swing = no interference.
it doesn't become interference until you see the rule that everyone (including the actual umpire rep who gave the interview immediately after the game) keeps quoting
quote:
p? If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on
or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference?
this is the specific rule that was used on this play.
as per the umpires, the coaches, and anyone else who has commented on it publicly, because this is the only part of the rule that doesn't require a swing for it to be catcher's interference.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:14 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
Again going back to my post that broke this down. Since it was a pitch, and Neal was in front of the hitter, he gave him no attempt to swing at the pitch, doesnt matter if batter stepped away or not.
What happens if he's out of the box and he swings at the pitch? He was bailing before Neal even moved.
Its the rules now, but its one that needs to be adjusted.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:18 am to Nutriaitch
quote:]
if the batter doesn't attempt to hit it, you have not "hindered or prevented" him from hitting it.
It doesnt matter if the hitter is attemptong ot hit it or not. It's all about does the catcher give him the chance to or not. Neal gave him zero chance at the attempt of hitting it because he wa in front of him before the ball was received. The batter has no chance to make any form of contact making it clear CI. It's really easy here
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:19 am to kengel2
quote:
What happens if he's out of the box and he swings at the pitch? He was bailing before Neal even moved.
This doesnt matter, its all about does the catcher give the opportunity or not to hit the ball. Neal did not because he was completely in front of where the hitter was before receiving the pitch. The rule says nothing about if the hitter steps out, swings or doesnt swing at the pitch. The rule is all about is the catcher preventing the hitter in any way from hitting the pitch and it's a clear yes by standing where he was before receiving the pitch.
Again, the only 2 ways it wuldnt have been CI are this:
1. Neal receives the pitch BEHIND the plate and isnt standing in front of the batter
2. Herring stepped OFF and then threw it to Neal, then this isn't a PITCH and the CI rule is off at that point
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 9:22 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:22 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
We dont know what all was considered, we dont get all the information.
But the rule obviously exists in a way Neal broke it and what should have happened, happened.
The problem is the announcers went off on a completely irrelevant tangent to 1 part of the rule when there were others that exisited.
the umpire rep gave a televised presser IMMEDIATELY after the game.
before either team had their pressers.
the umpire told us point blank that Rule 8-3-p is the rule that was used on the play.
and he read that rule out loud
quote:
p? If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on
or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference?
PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:24 am to Nutriaitch
Well if thats the only thing that was considered, debatable for sure they got it right or wrong, but in the end, even if they got there the wrong way potentially, the other rules exists which Neal CLEARLY broke making it the right call even if the method getting there was incorrect.
Which yes arguing rule semantics basically but the right outcome happened based on the rule book, just not necessarily the rule he chose to expand on. So I dont know why anyone is still losing their minds over it either way. Rare rule that just happened to not go our way but was the right outcome ultimately.
Which yes arguing rule semantics basically but the right outcome happened based on the rule book, just not necessarily the rule he chose to expand on. So I dont know why anyone is still losing their minds over it either way. Rare rule that just happened to not go our way but was the right outcome ultimately.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 9:26 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:25 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
It doesnt matter if the hitter is attemptong ot hit it or not. It's all about does the catcher give him the chance to or not. Neal gave him zero chance at the attempt of hitting it because he wa in front of him before the ball was received. The batter has no chance to make any form of contact making it clear CI. It's really easy here
the head of SEC umpires gave an interview explain the actual call.
and not once did he ever mention that the interference was with the batter.
he ONLY quoted the part about being on or in front of the plate (without the ball) on the steal attempt.
that is literally the ONLY situation in which interference is called without a swing attempt.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:27 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
the other rules exists which Neal CLEARLY broke making it the right call even if the method getting there was incorrect.
except he didn't .
catcher's interference is never, ever, ever, ever, ever called without a swing except in this exact scenario. because there is a rule written to cover this exact scenario.
otherwise you cannot interfere with something that does not happen.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:33 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
Well if thats the only thing that was considered, debatable for sure they got it right or wrong, but in the end, even if they got there the wrong way potentially, the other rules exists which Neal CLEARLY broke making it the right call even if the method getting there was incorrect.
here is the exact wording of the entire definition of defensive interference
quote:
b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder (usually the catcher) that hinders
or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch?
you have to actually interfere with the act of hitting, not "the potential ability to swing"
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:58 am to Nutriaitch
While it is not an automatic strike as many people have mentioned, when the batter steps out of the box before the catcher moves forward, you can no longer have interference, since there was no batter to interfere with. What they umpires failed to recognized was that the play changed when the batter stepped out of the box.
There are 3 things that would have made the call correct, but none of those happened. Milan bailed the umpires and conference out of a huge blown call by the mis interpretation of a rule. The SC batter blew it big time by stepping out of the box, the call would have been correct had he stayed in the batters box.
There are 3 things that would have made the call correct, but none of those happened. Milan bailed the umpires and conference out of a huge blown call by the mis interpretation of a rule. The SC batter blew it big time by stepping out of the box, the call would have been correct had he stayed in the batters box.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:09 am to CalRipkenJr
quote:
catcher steps on or in front of home plate
Here is the question nobody is able to answer.
Does this mean
A. Completely in front of the plate
B. In front of the plate to the batter
C. In front of the plate to the runner
D. In fair territory
E. None of the above
The way I read the rule it is C but I’ve heard the explanation to it being each one above.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:19 am to TigerDM
quote:
While it is not an automatic strike as many people have mentioned, when the batter steps out of the box before the catcher moves forward, you can no longer have interference, since there was no batter to interfere with. What they umpires failed to recognized was that the play changed when the batter stepped out of the box.
Thats what I was trying to get to, if the batter steps out how can he be interfered with? If he's out of the box and swings, it should be a strike.
ETA: He wasnt forced out of the box either, he starts moving before the pitch and before Neal gets up.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 10:23 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:25 am to TigerDM
quote:
While it is not an automatic strike as many people have mentioned, when the batter steps out of the box before the catcher moves forward, you can no longer have interference, since there was no batter to interfere with. What they umpires failed to recognized was that the play changed when the batter stepped out of the box.
nowhere is that stated in the rules.
the only rule that applies to this is the one they used.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News