greg
Junior Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by greg on Aug 9, 2012 10:23:21 GMT 10
We beat Forest Hill in a nail biter, 6 - 5 I think the end score was. A bit of controversy in last 10 minutes, we may hear more about this later although I think the protest was put in after the game had finished not when the play happened. Great game for the first hour and 50 minutes though. Our reserves got done. A protest was lodged, but our coach neglected to say to the umpire that he had done so. This might be due to the umpire being completely unapproachable at the time. The umpire did not follow match day procedure and refused to explain what he saw and the rule he applied. Apparently what was written in the scorebook did not comply either. The league has agreed that our protest has merit & would have been upheld, but these small technicalities mean they will not hear it. The penant committee has discretionary powers, but they believe it is better for our coach to learn how to lodge a protest than uphold the laws that have impacted on the result of a game. I believe this is a poor result all around. Well perhaps kb19 you might want to read the rulebook in regards to interference. You called out at the umpires judgement for your interference with the 3rd baseman. And from my understanding you cannot protest a judgement call. I can't believe it even made It to being heard by a panel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2012 10:27:36 GMT 10
I didnt realise rehe'ar$e'd had an 'ar$e' in it - kindof fits perfectly with the point I was making really.
|
|
|
Post by kb19 on Aug 9, 2012 10:29:47 GMT 10
A protest was lodged, but our coach neglected to say to the umpire that he had done so. This might be due to the umpire being completely unapproachable at the time. The umpire did not follow match day procedure and refused to explain what he saw and the rule he applied. Apparently what was written in the scorebook did not comply either. The league has agreed that our protest has merit & would have been upheld, but these small technicalities mean they will not hear it. The penant committee has discretionary powers, but they believe it is better for our coach to learn how to lodge a protest than uphold the laws that have impacted on the result of a game. I believe this is a poor result all around. Well perhaps kb19 you might want to read the rulebook in regards to interference. You called out at the umpires judgement for your interference with the 3rd baseman. And from my understanding you cannot protest a judgement call. I can't believe it even made It to being heard by a panel. They applied the rule incorrectly greg. If you saw the play, the third baseman was collected as the shortstop was fielding the ball. He had no play on the ball and was in the wrong spot. He admitted at the time he had no play & the umpire that made the call admitted out loud at the time that he did not see it. We did not protest a judgement call & I have already stated the penant committee would have upheld our protest.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Aug 9, 2012 11:00:37 GMT 10
I didnt realise rehe'ar$e'd had an 'ar$e' in it - kindof fits perfectly with the point I was making really. Been caught out mate?
|
|
|
Post by player to be named on Aug 9, 2012 11:12:57 GMT 10
Sounds like umpires need to do some revision on interference rules this week...There was another missed interference call in a close Bgrade game on the weekend.
Runner forced out at two cops a ball in the head while he is 3/4 way towards 2...batter not called out as the play was not interfered with?? A protest was placed correctly at the time of play but did not end up influencing the outcome of the game.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Aug 9, 2012 11:32:07 GMT 10
A throwing error that hits a player running does not constitute interference unless the runner has deliberately interfered with the play by deviating into the line of the throw, then and only then in the judgement of the umpire will a decision be made. Generally, if a thrown ball has hit a base runner, it is bad luck. Just remember back to John Ramsdenwhen he was plunked by the NSW short stop. The batter was still safe.
|
|
|
Post by player to be named on Aug 9, 2012 13:07:10 GMT 10
No throwing error, runner coming in to 2nd standing up. Baseball Rule 7.09(e) would suggest otherwise... 7.09 Runner Interference It is interference by a batter or a runner when: (e) 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 a team-mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2012 13:37:57 GMT 10
No throwing error, runner coming in to 2nd standing up. Baseball Rule 7.09(e) would suggest otherwise... 7.09 Runner Interference It is interference by a batter or a runner when: (e) 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 a team-mate. Was the runner hit before or after he was called out? If before then not interference - if after then interference.
|
|
|
Post by player to be named on Aug 9, 2012 14:00:11 GMT 10
after
|
|
|
Post by farnt on Aug 9, 2012 14:30:27 GMT 10
Not sliding eh PTBN...got to be careful what you say in those situations as sometimes people get in trouble if their words or intent is mis-interpreted ;-)
|
|
|
Post by regg44 on Aug 9, 2012 14:36:23 GMT 10
I remember a similiar situation from World Series game, albeit quite a few years ago. Yankees had bases loaded force out at 2nd, runner from 1st (who was now out - the great man Reggie in fact) stood still and took throw from Davey Lopes on hip - 2 runs scored and I think batter runner may have gone to 2nd.
No interference call, Lasorda went absolutely nuts, but umpires let play stand.
Possibly rule may have changed over time but at that time the interference had to be intentional, ie move into the throw or put your arms out etc; merely being hit by thrown ball did not constitute interference.
As I say the rules may have changed.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Aug 9, 2012 14:46:30 GMT 10
I do remember a call a couple of years ago in a club game where the runner going to second was forced out, and moved out the way of the second play. Of course, the throw to one was wild and hit the runner who had tried to remove themselves from the play and was well off a direct line between second and first (would have been called out for running outside of the base paths).
Call: Interference.
Perhaps it was to be a 4-6-9 double play!
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Aug 9, 2012 15:10:46 GMT 10
I think the important factor in this maybe interference is the positioning of runner. If he was 3/4 of the way to 2nd base he is definately too far out to slide besides the runner is entitled to the line per say. My decision would be bad luck to the fielding side and maybe an ambulance to repair the runners face or eardrums.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Aug 9, 2012 15:28:54 GMT 10
After two years of the ABL, I'm sure that poor Josh Davies must be confused as to what the interference rule must be after being called out twice on it. Both looked harsh calls too.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Aug 9, 2012 15:32:54 GMT 10
kb19..What was the play/rule that was subject to protest? ..just curious.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Aug 13, 2012 20:13:22 GMT 10
Re Stuart's comment..There is NO rule re running off the base path as in a straight line between second and third. A runner could be 10 foot off "the line" if his running line was taken on that angle. The relevant point is running of "HIS" line (that is the original line he has taken) Although the result in the above example gives the same result, runners are not confined to the imaginary line between 2nd, 3rd, and home.
|
|