|
I didn't see the game or the play, but here is what is available on mlb.com in the wrap:
"Tied at 1 in the bottom of the 10th inning, reliever Clint Nageotte loaded the bases on a single and two walks with one out. The rookie right-hander did exactly what he needed when former Mariner Tino Martinez lofted a fly ball into shallow left field. Raul Ibanez caught it and fired accurately home, sending Carl Crawford scuttling back to third.
Relief turned into bewilderment when the umpires got together and ruled shortstop Jose Lopez, covering third base while Willie Bloomquist lined up for a cutoff throw, had obstructed the runner's view of the catch, awarding Crawford home plate to deliver Tampa Bay a 2-1 victory. By rule, Lopez was charged with an error on the play, sending Seattle to its seventh loss in eight games.
[deleted comments from Bob Melvin and players denigrating the call, denying obstruction, etc.]
Melvin's initial thought was to protest, but because obstruction is a judgment call, he had no recourse with the umpires.
"In this case, both the shortstop and the third baseman attempted to impede the runner from seeing when the ball was caught by screening him from the play," crew chief Joe West said. "When a play is being made on the obstructed runner, and this happened subsequent to the catch when the throw went home, then that runner is entitled to one base beyond the base he held at the time of the play. When they made the play on him, because of the obstruction, you have to score him. That's the rule."
My understanding of the rule is that blocking a runner's vision is obstruction. If the screening lasts only to the moment of the catch, then it would be type B. However, it seems to me that if the screening continues into the throw, then it is clearly additionally type A. Once a throw is initiated, and it goes either to home or third, the runner is being played on. In this kind of obstruction, it seems appropriate for the umpire to use a type B mechanic--that's how the obstruction started.
Dave
|