This was a poorly umpired series, and last night behind the plate the guy was really bad. His strike zone was terrible, and he waited way too long to make his calls. This fact was a key part of the controversial interference play. The catcher would not have thrown the ball to second if he knew that ball four had been called. This umpire would take five seconds to let the batter know if the pitch was a ball or a strike. Several times a batter just stood at the plate looking silly after ball four had been called, because the ump had not called the pitch loud enough for them to hear. On the interference call, the ump did call it immediately. I wondered why the batter was not out, and why the runner was not being sent back to first base right away. I think the ump was trying to take the call back, maybe because he felt he was the cause of it all by not calling ball four in time (I am just speculating). But I think the batter did interfere with the throw to second, and interference was called right away. Then nothing happened. Then Augie comes strolling out to ask WTF was the call, then the four umpires huddled for five minutes, then explained it to Augie, then explained it to the Esmay, then finally called the batter out for interference, and sent the runner back to first. The catcher would not have thrown to second if he knew the batter had walked. Umps have to loudly and quickly yell ball four in that situation.
Anybody else notice that last night's home plate ump (Cline) was the same dude who made 2 terrible calls at 1st base on Saturday? First he missed what appeared to be a clean tagout by ASU. Then he called Montalbano out on a double play although he beat the throw. Hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but this appears to be a case of a defective ump.
Yo and CP, the problem you guys have is you are looking at the outcome based on just this situation. What would you have said if there was a runner on 2nd, none on first, and the batter attempts to steal third on ball 4? If the batter crosses the catcher's line, he is out and the runner goes back. Here's the bottom line on the ruling, the umpire had forgotten the count and this is clear because you see him checking with the field officials. Having forgotten he called, imo correctly, interference on the steal because the baserunner was stealing. Once he realized the count, he incorrectly sent the batter to first which is where Augie came out to argue the ruling. Had he realized it was Ball four, he may not have called interference, but it was too late as you cannot "uncall" the interference. Since that was the call, the batter is out and the runner must return to the base where they started by rule.
I did not see the play but if the UT catcher didn't hear "ball four" and thought it was a strikeout and he saw the runner going toward 2nd base he is going to try and throw him out. It was 95% the ump's fault for not immediately calling the pitch. The balk call was close but I don't believe there was a pause while pitching from the stretch position.
I get what some people are saying about the timing of the call of the pitch... But, seriously, when a runner on 1st is attempting to steal, he's already in motion before the pitch reaches the plate. Furthermore, the catcher is already mentally preparing to throw before the pitch reaches the plate. Whether it was a ball or a strike, the catcher is coming up gunning. If he hears the call is a ball he might hold the ball, but I've seen a lot of unnecessary throws down to 2nd in this situation. I'd also add that (as a catcher) I hit a couple of batters trying to throw out a baserunner. I also overthrew once or twice where I was trying to throw around/over a batter. Psychologically the two do go hand-in-hand. The ump was in the right spot to make the call and he made the call immediately. If the situations were reversed I'd be angry and wonder what the ump was thinking, but the batter clearly wasn't completely inside the box, so at one level I'd have to accept it.[/burnt orange shades]
Yoladu, that would be A reasonable rule, but it is not THE rule. Rule says, any interference with catcher = out. Strike count doesn't matter. You could petition the NCAA to rewrite the rule to say that interference can't be called on ball 4 if the runner was going to move up anyway, but until they make that change this is what we got. I didn't clearly see the play, but the rule with baserunners generally is that it's their job to get out of the way of the fielder. If the ASU batter didn't, then it was the right call.
Yup, that's ultimately what I was trying to point out. The rule doesn't make exceptions for that particular situation, and really it can't. There are hundreds of exxceptions that "could" be written into rules, but that would make the rulebook virtually unusable as no one would be able to remember "Unless on Sunday with the home team batting, down three runs" To be fair, I tend to agree that ASU got boned, but they got boned according to the rules.
