|
Sal:
Dave beat me to the Title Page. As you can see, it is a very "official" source. It is also not available to the public, and I'm not even sure if it is available to the teams (although it should be - these aren't "umpire secrets" in here).
Much of the MLBUM came from the PBUC Umpire Manual, which is available to the public. However, the above case play is NOT in the PBUC manual.
Both the MLBUM and the PBUC manual both talk about the "delayed" type A obstruction about which you discussed. However, in both, they talk about a batter-runner that is obstructed before reaching first. Nowhere does it say anything about a runner being obstructed while the ball is in the air and calling it "delayed type A". The reason is, with a batted ball in the air, how can a runner be type A obstructed? He can't, because with the batted ball in the air, no one is making a play on the runner. They can't, the defense doesn't have the ball. There is no such thing, by definition, of type A obstruction on a runner while a batted ball is still in the air.
The reason the "delayed type A" is needed for the batter-runner is because 7.06a specifically says if a batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first, it is type A obstruction. Well, cooler heads prevailed in the interpretations, and the professional interpretation is now to delay type A on a batter-runner if the batted ball is still in the air, the reasoning being if the ball is caught, then obviously, the obstruction had nothing to do with the play. Call it a "legal fiction".
In Evans Manual, the ONLY time he says to call a "delayed type A" is when the batter-runner is obstructed on a ball that is still in the air. If the ball is on the ground, kill the play. Evans also gives three examples of runners in a rundown when obstruction occurs. In all three examples, he says the play is killed immediately, as it is type A obstruction.
Emmel had his heart in the right place. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the rule to back him up. Does the rule need to be changed? That may be. In the mean time, am I bashing a "fellow ump"? Well, if it were my crew, maybe I would try to find a way to defend the call. But I am a ticket buying fan of MLB, and as such, he isn't a "fellow blue", Emmel is a professional on the field, paid a lot of money to know the rules, and he blew one. It happens, I'm not out to hang the guy, but I'm not going to defend him either.
Just like him, I have to call 'em like I see 'em. And I saw Emmel blow this call.
As for the "protest", there was no protest. There was a lot of complaining, b*itching, moaning, and griping, but there was no official protest. Melvin was told by Emmel and Joe West that the obstruction was a "judgment call" and obviously, judgment calls are not protestable. But if Melvin had said, "I'm not protesting the obstruction call, I am protesting the awarding of home, as this is a type B obstruction, and no automatic award is applied", he MIGHT have had a chance. Of course, if Emmel said, "I am awarding home because in my JUDGMENT, the runner would have scored without the obstruction", then again, the call would not have been protestable, but Emmel would have looked like an idiot.
But no, Melvin was too busy arguing that it was not obstruction at all, which, a) he was not going to win, and b) was wrong.
Managers need a coach on the bench that know the rules as well as the umpires. On the PGA tour, it has been suggested by Tom Meeks (Rules Director of the USGA) that players pay their caddies to go to the USGA/PGA Rules Clinics, so that SOMEONE on their "team" knows the rules and can keep the golfer out of trouble. I think baseball managers should do the same thing: have a coach on the team attend training, clinics, maybe even umpire school so that SOMEONE in the dugout knows the rules, and knows when to ask the right questions.
Just suppose, in the Mariners/Devil Rays game in question, Melvin had come out of the dugout saying, "Guys, OK, you called obstruction on my shortstop. That's judgment, I can't argue that. But you awarded Crawford home as if it were type A obstruction, when clearly it was type B. If so, I think I would like to protest the award."
West, Emmel and the rest of the crew get together without the managers and say, "Damn, I think he's right. I guess we need to put the runner back." Of course, Pinella would have to get run, because you know he would be coming out of the other dugout as soon as the umps unscored the run.
But no, no manager thinks that much about the rules, and Melvin comes out arguing the judgment part of the call, which immediately turns into a dead end. Then he shoots his mouth off at the plate comference the next night and gets run before the game ever starts.
If you read what West and McKean say after the game, their defense of the call (and their apparent contradictions between what was said to the managers and what was said to the public an hour later) was laughable.
The simple answer is, Emmel blew the call and West didn't talk him out of it. That's bad umpiring, and MLB will never come out and say if Emmel, West and crew were ever "disciplined" for their error.
|