Any comments on the possible obstruction by the Boston third baseman in the top of the sixth inning of the Oakland-Boston game.

I would have called obstruction.

Obstruction was called on that play. The umpires conferred and ruled that Tejada did not have a legitimate shot to score on the play. I agree with them, too. The ball was being fielded in very short left field at the time of the obstruction, heck it was right behind shortstop. Tejada's third base coach was trying to hold him up, and Tejada tried to buy home because of the obstruction. It was not a legitimate attempt to advance, and so the runner is protected back to third base. He advances at his own risk.

OBR
 

I don't call any baseball, but I know in softball -- ASA anyway -- Tejada would have been placed back at 3B, as a runner generally cannot be put out between the two bases between which s/he was obstructed [the exceptions being subsequent interference by the runner, unsportsmanlike conduct, missed base, and maybe another exception that escapes me].

It's a shame Tejada didn't keep running, as we'll never know what kind of shot he had. But if it had been a relatively close play -- maybe not even bang-bang -- and he was out, I think the umpires would have given him home. At the time I thought it was a bad call, but a player of Tejada's caliber really needs to keep running and stop trying to umpire (especially when he apparently doesn't know the rule).

Byrnes missing the plate--why no interference?
 

Did anyone else wonder why the plate umpire didn't call the A's Eric Byrnes for interference when he shoved the catcher, after he had missed the plate and the catcher was trying to get to the ball? Shouldn't that have been an immediate dead ball? Eventually Boston got the out by tagging Byrnes, but it seems that he should have been called out when he pushed the catcher who was going for the ball.

Re: Byrnes missing the plate--why no interference?
 

"Mr Speaker, the member from SC raises for the question of board procedure. Is is not proper for members to address their responses to the subject of the thread, in this case 'baseball' rules on obstruction?"

Tap, Just a little good natured ribbing. Welcome aboard, it's good to have you here, but deviating from the subject of a thread can be a bit disorganizing. Baseball obstruction rules are very different than softball. Interference differences might be good to discuss in another thread.

I loved the comment on ESPN sports center this morning where the analyist said to the effect, "Players don't know the rules. He probably thought he was awarded home." Then commenting on the runners action said, "See, right there he's pointing and yelling 'Interference! Interference!' becuase I'm sure he didn't know he should be yelling obstruction instead. I mean, I didn't know that was the proper term."

what type of obstruction was it?
 

Somebody please help me understand the Tejada play. I didn't see it live, but from the replays later, it looked like the umpires ruled it a 7.06(b) obstruction. So does that mean that in their judgment a play was not being made on Tejada? Is it because they thought he was going to stop at 3rd? Or does a throw from the outfield not fit the definition of a play being made on the runner? Where is that definition, by the way?

If they called it a 7.06(a), then shouldn't it immediately have been a dead ball, meaning that he wouldn't be in jeopardy?

UPDATE: I just saw the replay again, and the bump took place before the throw was made. So I guess THAT means it's a 7.06(b). So the 3rd base umpire ruled (correctly, it seems to me) that Tejada would not have scored even if the obstruction had not occurred. Especially since he stopped running.

So I guess I just answered by own question. Did I get it right?

[Edited by YoungRighty on Oct 5th, 2003 at 12:53 PM]

Re: what type of obstruction was it?
 

I believe you did.

A profesional baseball team which plays stupid baseball, does not deserves to win. By the way i dont root for any of these two

Re: Re: what type of obstruction was it?
 

I would offer to buy you a beer to celebrate your 4400th post, but I'm reckoning that with averaging about 30 posts a week, ya ain't getting much time down at the pub.

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll make sure to have one for ya. I appreciate that someone is here on the board giving back to our society of officials and helping us all improve.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/beerchug.gif

I wish I had seen the play. I tuned in later and they were talking about it, but they didn't show it.

I seem to remember the announcers wondering why the umpire, who immediately pointed at the play in apparent acknowledgement of the obstruction, didn't call dead ball right away. A little later, however, they talked about the ball <i>not</i> being dead immediately, as if someone had clued them in to the rule. Do I remember correctly?

Apparently the obstruction occurred between 2B and 3B, and I gather than even without the obstruction, the runner had no legitimate shot at home, so he advanced past 3B at his own risk and was put out.

For anyone interested, although baseball and ASA softball do differ in their obstruction rules, in this instance the play would produce the same result: runner protected to 3B and at risk after 3B. If the obstruction did occur between 2B and 3B, the runner would not be protected back to 3B after advancing beyond it.