Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by MrUmpire
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by MrUmpire
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
The interpretations you are encountering are that it "could" be obstruction and the bottom line advice you are receiving is that this is a judgment call. Problem is that you have to "see" the violation in order to call it. Where would a BU be and concentrationg on when this "back-back" scenario happens?
|
No, the interpretations stated that it WAS obstruction, if the player reacted to the verbal "back-back." No judgement involved.
|
I would disagree. Someone has to judge if an action by the player was a reaction to the verbal. I think that should be the umpire.
Not every move by a runner, even a move back to the bag, is necessarily a reaction to the verbal. The runner may be thinking that the pitcher is about to try to pick him off, and goes back to the back. Judgment is definitely involved.
|
Please be an official and not so wishy washy about everything. We can make a decision about something and enforce it or stand out on the field thinking about every excuse under the sun why we shouldn't call something.
IF THE PLAYER REACTED TO THE VERBAL "Back-Back" THERE IS NO JUDGEMENT INVOLVED. OBSTRUCTION. No, What-ifs, no maybes, no, it could of been. Just Obstruction. Your trying to analyze something to death here.
Wonder if the runner dies on the way back and it is Sunday afternoon and his mother is at the game and the coach was really thinking about yelling back anyway,,,,yady yady, yada.........!
|
I'm sorry, but I live and work in the real world. Here when I see an action I have to decide what the action is and what caused it. That, sir, is called using judgment.
If you can umpire without it, have at it.
|
Well here is the "Real World." We have told you what caused it and what the action was. Ah Dah, I wonder what judgement you could possibly come up with besides obstruction. HELLO!!!
|
You either are fixated on one specific instance in which a runner reacted to the fielder, or you have very limited experience, or you lack the ability to see beyond the obvious.
Even the "interpretation" provided by the original poster included these words:
"If the act hindered or changed the play, obstruction should be called."
Do you need to look up the definition of the word "if"?
Even the ruling you appear to be clining to relies on the umpire judging
IF the act hindered or changed the play. That, sir, is using judgment. You cannot move to the second phase, the penalty, without first deciding
IF the act hindered of changed the play.
How does one do that? We look to the runner and consider what he does and why. Again, we use judgement.
That is all I have said in this thread. Your position that umpires need not utilize their judgement in this play is ridiculous and, most likely, impossible.
Good day.