PDA

View Full Version : Joe West


Fenway
06-25-2007, 03:36 PM
Jow West has been an umpire for nearly 30 years and he is probably the best known name as a umpire. (which isn't a good thing )


But as a crew chief he has shown time and time again he will huddle to try and get the call right ( see 2004 ALCS Game 6 ) and he has called upstairs more than once to ask the official scorer what replay shows
http://www.misschatter.com/janf/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/joewest.jpg





Not a great singer however :tongue:


http://www.cowboyjoewest.com/blue_cowboy.htm (http://www.cowboyjoewest.com/blue_cowboy.htm)

PKalltheway
06-25-2007, 10:00 PM
he has called upstairs more than once to ask the official scorer what replay shows
I didn't know umpires could do that. I remember Frank Pulli tried to look at an instant replay during a game a long time ago, and he got in trouble from MLB.

Brian26
06-25-2007, 10:04 PM
and he has called upstairs more than once to ask the official scorer what replay shows
http://www.misschatter.com/janf/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/joewest.jpg



Are you sure he's just not ordering extra mushrooms on the deep dish? :D:

tebman
06-25-2007, 11:13 PM
I'm sure Joe West is a fine man and Guillen apparently agreed that the bizarro interference non-double-play was the right call on Sunday. But what I never heard an explanation for was why the play wasn't called dead when the interference happened instead of long after the play was completed?

That play didn't cost the Sox the game -- their own non-offense cost them the game. But umpires not paying attention really galls me.

Who's on first? What's on second? That's what the umpires are supposed to know, and they clearly didn't on Sunday.

(rant off)

Brian26
06-25-2007, 11:19 PM
But what I never heard an explanation for was why the play wasn't called dead when the interference happened instead of long after the play was completed?

The official rule, as it was researched yesterday, says the play should continue as long as there wasn't a play on the obstructed runner. When Uribe bumped Pagan, the ball was in rightfield. If Uribe had bumped Pagan, for example, as the ball was being thrown to 2nd base, the play should have been called dead.

What I still don't agree with the lead runner, on third base, getting a free chance at scoring on the play when the trailing runner had the obstruction called on him.

soxfanreggie
06-26-2007, 01:41 AM
I think the rule is a little unclear. I believe it mentions that the play is immediately dead if something "detrimental" happens to the other team. Some people describe that as an out. If that is true, shouldn't the play have been dead after the runner was tagged going back into 2nd?

Jaffar
06-26-2007, 09:11 AM
I think the rule is a little unclear. I believe it mentions that the play is immediately dead if something "detrimental" happens to the other team. Some people describe that as an out. If that is true, shouldn't the play have been dead after the runner was tagged going back into 2nd?

That's exactly how I understood the explanation of the rule but nobody seemed to mention the 2 rundowns that followed the "detrimental" act.

PatK
06-26-2007, 02:25 PM
Since the runner tried to go back to second, it shouldn't have been counted as impeding his progress.

Had he been going to third, it would have been.

I was talking with some umps about it yesterday (although they were Senior Ball umps, not MLB), and they thought that since he didn't try to advance to third and got caught making a wide turn, it shouldn't have been called.

Regardless, Sox can't use that as an excuse.

thepaulbowski
06-26-2007, 02:32 PM
Since the runner tried to go back to second, it shouldn't have been counted as impeding his progress.

Had he been going to third, it would have been.

I was talking with some umps about it yesterday (although they were Senior Ball umps, not MLB), and they thought that since he didn't try to advance to third and got caught making a wide turn, it shouldn't have been called.

Regardless, Sox can't use that as an excuse.

From the way I read the rule, once interference is called it kind of like a delayed penalty in hockey.

EastCoastSoxFan
06-26-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm sure Joe West is a fine man and Guillen apparently agreed that the bizarro interference non-double-play was the right call on Sunday. But what I never heard an explanation for was why the play wasn't called dead when the interference happened instead of long after the play was completed?

That play didn't cost the Sox the game -- their own non-offense cost them the game. But umpires not paying attention really galls me.

Who's on first? What's on second? That's what the umpires are supposed to know, and they clearly didn't on Sunday.

(rant off)If the Sox had blown the rundown between third and home and the runner had been able to score, the obstruction would not have come into play and the run would have been allowed to stand (not sure whether Pagan would have been allowed to remain at second base, probably not).

Someone said it's sort of like a delayed penalty in hockey -- the team that committed the infraction is not allowed to benefit from it, but the team against whom the infraction is committed potentially can.

Basically it's to prevent infielders from tackling a runner rounding second every time a ball is hit into the gap.

Hokiesox
06-26-2007, 11:09 PM
If the Sox had blown the rundown between third and home and the runner had been able to score, the obstruction would not have come into play and the run would have been allowed to stand (not sure whether Pagan would have been allowed to remain at second base, probably not).

Someone said it's sort of like a delayed penalty in hockey -- the team that committed the infraction is not allowed to benefit from it, but the team against whom the infraction is committed potentially can.

Basically it's to prevent infielders from tackling a runner rounding second every time a ball is hit into the gap.

It's called a delayed dead ball. If the umpire followed the right mechanics, he put his left arm out with a fist when he saw the rules infraction, to signal to his partners he's got something.

Blueprint1
06-26-2007, 11:36 PM
The worst part about that play was that if Uribe had not got in the way of the runner he would have been thrown out easily. The runner on 3rd base was not going anywhere.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-27-2007, 12:11 AM
Garcia (the ump supervisor) was quoted in the papers the next day saying that the play is dead once the obstructed runner is tagged out. Everything after that, in effect, didn't happen, so the rundown out between second and third doesn't count. Once the play is over the umps decide what to do with the obstructed runner. In this case, they put him back on second.

This is the only explanation I've seen that reconciles the wording of the rule with what happened and with what Hawk claimed was on the note Garcia sent him. It makes sense, because when there is more than one runner on base it's likely that a play will be made on the obstructed runner sooner rather than later (as was the case here).