The two umpiring calls...

Really got tired of Ravech continually referring back to the interference call last night…he beat it to death. He “what if’d” the rest of the game although I don’t recall him saying what if we had not left the bases loaded twice. Anyway, my quick take on the two calls.

  1. Interference call. As a former middle infielder I am a fan of this rule even though many old-timers (I guess I put myself in that group since I am 54) look at taking a middle infielder out as part of baseball. Not arguing that at all–we can just disagree. But I definitely don’t agree with the OSU coach’s assessment that the runner “did everything he could to get out of the way.” If that was the case he would have peeled out to right field but he chose to go towards the infield and Jax’s throwing hand, albeit making it look innocent. This was a picky call but I really think the ump got it right.

  2. Foul ball. The focus seems to be on where the runners would have ended up but my beef is that it should never have been reversed. You will never convince me there was indisputable evidence that it was not a foul ball. With the white blur of slow motion it was challenging to differentiate the ball from the line and every time I saw it live it looked foul. Anyway, just my opinion.

Also, with his injury, NO WAY Kwan scores from 1st; full strength–possibly. But clearly Cole pulled up when he saw the umpire’s foul call so that has to be factored in as well.

I am sure this has been discussed in other threads but I did not see one thread devoted to this discussion so I apologize if it was. Only thing that matters now is that we won!

Go Omahogs! Claim this National Championship tonight!!

I didn’t hear much of Ravech’s post game comments, but as long as he made sure to pass along deserved accolades to the outstanding game the Hogs played, I’m not terribly upset at his “excuses”. I’m sure he is doing everything he can to attempt to influence the umpires going forward. It’s the next border line call that he’s most interested in getting a favorable ruling.

As to the controversial calls, the way I look at it we won one and they won one. Its arguable that (albeit by letter of the rules, the ump ruled correctly re. the baserunning interference) there was very little if any actual interfering with the throw from second. Most likely the double pump screwed the DP possibility…not to mention two Hogs in each other’s way at first base to take the throw. But I don’t disagree with you that once the foul ball was called, there probably wasn’t indisputable evidence to overturn it (btw, I thought it was fair as I watched it), but yet it did get overturned and gave OSU another shot at a big inning.

Last comment, in both instances, it wasn’t the umpires that left runners on 3d base in both the cases with which OSU took issue.

I agree on Ravech. I was getting very tired of the reference to the interference. Don’t think it had anything to do with the OSU starter walking or hitting guys. I think Eduardo Perez was dumbfounded by the interference call too. You notice he was silent for a long time after the play was reviewed. Except for Petersen, I think ESPN is very pro Oregon State in their announcing.

I think Eduardo was silent because the umpire’s reasoning did not quite mesh with the call depending on how you interpret what he said. Technically, the OSU player ducked and did not go into Biggers as if sliding into second. However, “by going into” Biggers, the ump meant he did not slide or peel off per the rulebook. If the umpire had said, “Your runner did not slide, coach, according to the rulebook,” then Casey would have had no beef. The umpire’s explanation wasn’t what it should have been, and I think that’s why Eduardo was so quiet. Otherwise, he’s been pretty complimentary of the Hogs and Hog Nation this year.

I agree with both points. The ball looked foul to me even though it was undoubtedly close. If the standard to overturn is “indisputable evidence” I don’t think they had it.

Yeah, I got really tired of hearing about the runner interference call. No doubt it was an important, perhaps game-changing, play, but it was the right call. As you point out, there were other game changing events. Usually are in any game decided by less than 5 or 6 runs. And their runner interference call didn’t score us one run. Not one. I’m pretty certain we got all our runs in our half of the inning. Someone can correct me if we got a defensive run in there somewhere.

IIRC, in 2009 Eibner got called for at least one and maybe two batter interference calls that were borderline at best. We had a runner on base at the time, and it cost us a stolen base and putting one of our best hitters back in the dugout with an out instead of hitting at the plate. Don’t remember all the details, but I believe it snuffed out a potential rally late in a game we lost.

Point being that almost all “interference” calls are controversial, and especially perceived that way by the team the call goes against. We’ve had at least our share of being on the wrong side of them in big moments. It just happens every now and then. I’m sure OSU is upset about it, but as I said, anyone who gets called for it always is.

On the fair/foul play, the ump HAS to make one call or another immediately, in real time. So, he made a call. I’m still far from convinced that he was wrong, and I can certainly understand (after seeing the slow-mo replay) WHY he called it fouil. It’s unfortunatel for OSU, but would they have him call a ball fair (regardless of who is at bat) if a ball that clearly looks foul to the naked eye at fuill speed?

Again - it just happens sometimes. You can’t expect the umpires, if they overturn, to just assume someone can make it from first to home safely.

on the foul ball, Cole was immediately there once the ball came off of the wall, I am not sure the runner doesn’t get thrown out going to second just like we saw later in the game from Heston.

Keep in mind the ump was within 10 feet of the ball striking the ground and turned to the ball landing and was watching ever so closely. That should have accounted for something and the call not reversed.


I thought fair was the right call.

It seemed the call they came up with was almost a compromise…“we will call it fair but we are going to give your runners only 2 and 1 bases, respectively”.

I am sure it was well-intended, much like when someone tries to let a car (going in the opposite direction) to make a turn in front of them when traffic is at or near a standstill. It is a kind move and well-intended…until a driver in the lane beside them (going in the same direction as the kind driver) isn’t aware of the gesture and a wreck happens. I have seen this happen multiple times…and many more “almost wrecks.”

I am glad last night that Blaine limited this to an “almost wreck.” :slight_smile:

I understand how people can see the foul/fair call differently and if it had originally been called fair I would have no issue. It is hard for me to see how anyone could claim that it was “indisputably” fair. IMO the video just did not enable anyone to make that determination. And, as has been said, the umpire had the best look of anyone.

Kind of makes me laugh to compare the replay we have today with the “slow motion replay” of yesteryear where the players in the picture looked almost like ghosts. :slight_smile: Today we expect to see everything crystal clear even if it is moving at 50-60 mph and is 100 feet away from the camera.

Listening to the umpire’s explanation & the commentators in the booth, once they decided it was a fair ball, their obligation was to determine the most conservative outcome. If that’s the case, giving the runner 1st & 3rd was the right decision. There was no reason to assume a runner scores or is safe at second. After all, the fielders stop their actions on the call, too. If they’d taken care of business on the next batter, it wouldn’t have mattered. Blaine stopped them. You’re right, it was “almost a wreck”