Interference call after safe call?

[2br02b]

Throwdown from catcher to SS at 2B. Runner beats tag and is called safe, but when she puts her hands down to push herself up, umpire calls her out. His explanation was that she made contact with the glove with the intent knocking the ball out.

Thoughts?

 

[marriard]

Throwdown from catcher to SS at 2B. Runner beats tag and is called safe, but when she puts her hands down to push herself up, umpire calls her out. His explanation was that she made contact with the glove with the intent knocking the ball out.

If the umpire judged that the runner had intent to knock the ball out of the glove, then she is out. You may disagree with their judgement, but once they make this call, it is the umpire's judgement call and she is out.

I would have to be there to know if I would agree or not.

 

[The Man In Blue]

As marriard said, would really need to see it to understand what the umpire saw. I’m not picturing how her hands (behind her on a slide?) would be near the tag.

To me, if she was already safe and the ball was not knocked loose during the play, I don’t think I could justify an interference call. I would be thinking malicious contact or unsporting behavior which is going to lead to a warning or ejection depending on the severity.

If she was obviously swatting at the glove and trying to knock the ball loose during the play or to prevent another play, it is interference.

 

[2br02b]

This is a similar play - left arm in the air as she slid into the base. When the play was over she put that hand on the ground and that was when the contact was made. The glove was at the runner's hip near the ground.

 

[marriard]

This is a similar play - left arm in the air as she slid into the base. When the play was over she put that hand on the ground and that was when the contact was made. The glove was at the runner's hip near the ground.

It really doesn't matter what you believe happened - or even if it DID happen that way.

It is what the umpire judged happened - they said she intentionally tried to dislodge the ball. That is what they saw. She is out.

 

[2br02b]

...That is what they saw. She is out.

That is the answer. Thanks.

My question was really about whether it would be prudent to change a call based on a perception.

 

[marriard]

My question was really about whether it would be prudent to change a call based on a perception.

As an umpire, one of the things you are out there for is to make judgement calls. It is part of the job.

I wouldn't view anything described here as perception. Even if he initially called her safe on a slide and then decided there was interference, that is not a changed call - that is a different second call. Both can be true.

 

[sjw62000]

Runner beats tag and is called safe, but when she puts her hands down to push herself up, umpire calls her out

If she was obviously swatting at the glove and trying to knock the ball loose during the play or to prevent another play, it is interference.

My question then is if runner was called safe, then no interference. How is call reversed after the safe call? As stated before un-sportsman-like behavior or malicious contact.

So my question then is; If the runner is called safe because of late or missed tag and she did not come off bag while in contact with ball-in-glove (I assume, or that would have been the call), how is it then interference?

Possible answer; she interfered with 2B attempting to continue the play? IDK just trying to further discussion.

 

[The Man In Blue]

That is the answer. Thanks.

My question was really about whether it would be prudent to change a call based on a perception.

Whose perception?

 

[MTR]

Throwdown from catcher to SS at 2B. Runner beats tag and is called safe, but when she puts her hands down to push herself up, umpire calls her out. His explanation was that she made contact with the glove with the intent knocking the ball out.

Thoughts?

If she is already safe, what's the point of the call?