|
Mon Aug 09, 2004, 03:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As far as the play and if right or wrong/type A or B. 1. the SS was clearly trying to block the runners vision. 2. The runner did make an attempt to go. and 3. as I recall the throw did come into the infield in the direction of home, tho it was cut off. That would constitute enough of a play on R3 to warrant the award of home.
__________________
Jim Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in. 
|
|
Mon Aug 09, 2004, 07:25am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who's view was obstructed, the runner or the coach? Has anyone ever observed the runner at third watch the catch when he was tagging up? Isn't that the coach's responsibility? If play as stated is correct then where's the obstruction?
|
|
Mon Aug 09, 2004, 09:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cowboy fan wrote:
"3. as I recall the throw did come into the infield in the direction of home, tho it was cut off. That would constitute enough of a play on R3 to warrant the award of home." ---------------------------------- If that throw was cutoff I don't think it would be construed as a play by F7. If my thinking is right no play was being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction therefore it's Type B and the runner is protected to third. Everything points to B including the directive. G.
|
|
Mon Aug 09, 2004, 10:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "funny" thing about this is that the Seattle manager, Bob Melvin, got ejected at the plate meeting the following day for arguing the obstruction call from the night prior.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?...mlb&id=1854572 I guess you can get thrown out at the plate conference!
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Mon Aug 09, 2004, 10:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally posted by Peruvian
Paul Emmel must have the largest balls in the history of umpiring. In the bottom of the 10th, Carl Crawford of TB was on third, tagging up as Tino Martinez hit a fly ball to left. During the catch, Seattle shortstop Jose Lopez came over to cover third and positioned himself just off the bag between third base and the catch, essentially screening Crawford's view of the catch. Emmel ruled that Lopez "obstructed Crawford's view of the catch and awarded him home." What?!? During the replay, it did look as though he tried to screen him. When Lopez came over to third, at the moment of the catch, he kind of discreetly threw his right shoulder up in on obvious attempt (IMO) to screen him, although Crawford could easily see the catch. What do you think? Is there a case that even covers this? I don't think I'd ever call that, especially to score the winning run - but that's why they get the big bucks and not me. There is a case that covers this as others have mentioned, but you are talking Seattle vs. Tampa bay, 2 teams going no-where meaning I wonder if this call would have been made in a Red-Sox, Yankee Game or some other meaningful game. Even if the player is blocking R3's view, there is still the third base coach. The 3BC is also watching the play and tells the runner when to tag / leave, so I'm surprised the call was made. Since it was Seattle vs. the DRays, nothing will probably come of it, but if it was any other meaningful game, my gut tells me something would be said or at least investigated. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Jim Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 08:18am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Emmel did not call Type A obstruction, because at the time of the OBS, there was not a play on the runner. The play came AFTER the OBS. Type B can NEVER "become" type A.
Had Emmel called Type A, he would have immediately called time, killed the play, and awarded home. He did not. He pointed to the play, shouted, "That's obstruction" (we assume, as there is no umpire audio on the replay), and AFTER the ball was thrown back into the infield, and the play was over, he THEN awarded HP to R3. Watch the tape. Emmel's mechanics clearly show he did not kill the play at the time. Either he had VERY bad mechanics (calling type A without killing the play), or he "judged" that Crawford would have scored without the OBS (EXTREMELY questionable judgment), or he mistakenly made the award of home on the premise that the defense obstructed and need to be penalized (also not supported by the rules). Somewhere along the way, Emmel made a mistake, not in his call, but in the result. The umpiring crew and some posters on this and other boards have twisted their shorts trying to find a way to justify the call. Sorry, but there was a mistake made SOMEWHERE in this play, either mechanics, rules interpretation or judgment. But there is no way to twist it to say Emmel was 100% correct.
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 09:38am
|
|||
|
|||
After considering how this entire play unfolded, I think I figured out how they came about their ruling.
As soon as the SS and 3B screened the runner, Emmel acknwledged the obstruction by pointing at it. However, he did not kill it right away because the ball was still in the air. This is one of those rare times you do NOT kill the ball immediately for Type A obstruction because if the ball is dropped or gets past the fielder, then the offensive team can possibly advance further - similar to when there is a rundown and the obstruction occurs when the ball is in the air between the two fielers. As soon as the LF caught the ball (or just there after since he threw the ball into the infield right after he caught it), Emmel killed the play and enforced the Type A obstruction and immediately awarded the runner home. As usual, the big leaguers get it right it just took a while for me to figure out how they came about their ruling. If you think about the "intent" of the player(s) who caused the obstruction, I think that act has to been enforced as Type A with an automatic base award. If you enforce it as Type B, then what would stop fielders from trying to do that every time? Bottom line... you could clearly see the "rattyness" by the SS when he came over and in my opinion, purposely try to obstruct the runner's view of the catch. Once you see that, why give the fielder the benefit of the doubt? That guttsy call by Emmel will discourage fielders from doing something stupid like that again. And the best thing about it is he got it RIGHT!
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 11:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sal,
#1. OBR 7.06 states: "When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction." (a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner." As you wrote, "When the obstruction occured the (BATTED) ball was in the air" therefore the obstruction did not occure when a play was being made on the runner so it's not type A. #2. Dave Hensley's above post follows. "Section 6.3 of the MLB Umpires Manual, entitled OBSTRUCTION AND INTERFERENCE PLAYS: APPROVED RULINGS includes this play: Ruling: ......This is obstruction under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b). The umpire should call the infraction when it occurs and award bases, if any, in the appropriate manner. It's pretty clear that the MLB Umpire Manual says that this obstruction should be handled under "B" #3. Emmel pointed to Lopez and called obstruction, signifying it was type "B" and play continued. #4. There was never "play" on the runner as the throw was cut off. Type "B" I was surprised at the ruling and further surprised by the Umpires Manual, even though it called it type "B". The ruling appears to me to be LL'ish or FEDish but not MLB. I've got a bad call. BTW I did get the PM you sent me last Friday and answered it last Saturday but never heard back. This will clarify my position, Regards. G. --------------------------------------------------------- Quote:
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 07:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gee,
Thanks for the reply but I did not receive it - Perhaps my email did not recongnize your email address. Try to resend if you can. As for this play, I agree with most of what your saying. However, common sense says that when a player is outright blantently cheating in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage, that act needs to be delt with swiftly and severely so that other players do NOT attempt the same "bush-league" tactics. Looking back in my notes from the 2000 Academy, Jim Evans clearly stated that Type A obstruction is not ALWAYS an immediate dead ball. OBR Type A obstruction states that "should a thrown ball (or in this case, a batted ball) be in flight before the obstruction is called by the umpire"... the umpire does NOT kill the play immediately because the runner may be able to obtain more than the one base award, i.e. wild throw or in this case, the ball could have been misplayed by the LF. In this particular play, (which was enforced as Type A Obstruction) Emmel did not kill the play immediately because the ball was in flight BEFORE the obstruction occurred. He had to wait until the batted ball was caught before he stopped play. Then he correctly awarded the runner one base - the pentalty allowed under Type A obstruction. Furthermore, the "rat" tactic used by that SS can only be penalized by Type A because under Type B, the "punishment does not fit the crime." As I said earlier, what would stop players from doing this every time if they knew that the obstruction penalty would give them the benefit of the doubt rather than the runner An umpire once told me... "Don't take the shi%#y end of the stick." Not only did Emmel not take the shi%#y end of the stick, he turned it around and stuck it up the shortstop's a$$ for doing something so idiotic.
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 08:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sal:
I agree, what the SS did was a rat move. However, Emmel, while his "heart" might have been in the right place (Rat moves will be punished!) flew DIRECTLY in the rulings as outlined in the MLBUM. The book CLEARLY says what the rat did was type B. Emmel let emotion get the best of him. There is no way to defend this a "delayed type A". The book says it is type B, he signalled type B, he did not kill the play immediately on the catch, he waited until the ball was thrown in. But he then said, "This has to be punished!" and scored the runner. Now, under type B, he can obviously "judge" that the run would have scored absent the OBS, but if he "judged" that in this case, that was pretty poor judgment. If he called type A, he did so with poor mechanics and if he called "delayed type A", he did so in contridiction of the MLBUM. One way or the other, Emmel blew the call, and the Seattle manager knew it.
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 09:25am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Atl Blue,
Emmel's call was Type A Obstruction (not Type B) and he did use the proper mechanic for Type A Obstruction. As I explained, this is one of those rare times that you DON'T kill the play immediately for Type A Obstruction because the ball was in flight BEFORE the obstruction occurred (see OBR 7.06(a) italics paragraph). We worked on this Type A obstruction drill in umpire school (although it was with rundowns rather than this specific scenario) and the instructors would watch to see if we killed the play at the appropiate time. Emmel did the right thing by NOT killing the play immediately because if he did and that fly ball was then dropped or turns into a double, then you essentially penalized the offensive (keep them from getting more bases) for an illegal act by the defense. As soon as the batted ball was caught, Emmel stopped play and enforced the appropiate penalty for Type A Obstruction - automatic one base award. We all agree that what the SS did was Obstruction - so you have two choices to penalize his actions. You can't use the Type B penalty for this situation because the runner could/would not have scored after the all play ceased (which in essence, gives the defense an unfair advantage because they would NOT be penalized for purposely trying to obstruct the runner's view). The result of Type B penalty for this play would have been a mere "slap on the wrist" which obviously is not right considering what the SS tried to do. So that leaves the Type A obstruction penalty (automatic one base award) as the only logical choice to use for this particular situation. This penalty not only "fits the crime better" but also discourages players from attempting to do the same thing again. Although the mechanic used for this play was different than what we would nomally do for Type A Obstruction, the penalty is still the same.
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 07:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sal:
From the MLB Umpire's Manual: (11) Runner on third base, one out. Batter hits a fly ball to right-center field, and the runner goes back to third base to tag up. Third baseman approaches the runner, faces him, and jockeys back and forth, intentionally trying to block the runner's view of the fielder catching the ball. Ruling: This is obstruction under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b). The umpire should call the infraction when it occurs and award bases, if any, in the appropriate manner. Sounds almost exactly like the play in question. The MLBUM tells Emmel what type of OBS this is. It's B. So, either poor judgment (saying the runner would have scored, the appropriate penalty under B) or a poor misapplication of the manual used by the MLB umps. Either way, he blew the call.
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 09:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Atl Blue,
With all due respect, What Major League Umpire Manual?? I am quoting from the 2004 Official Baseball Rules and what Jim Evans taught us at umpire school in 2000. Some of you are talking about this MLB Umpire Manual but, if I'm not mistaken, that manual is revised, added to and deleted from quite frequently. Moreover, it is given to MLB Umpires, Supervisors and perhaps members of the MLB front office. Whoever claims to have a copy of this and is stating official interpretations from it, where are they coming from and what edition (year) is this so called MLB Manual? I can tell you right now, if that game was protested and Emmel made the wrong call that decided the outcome of the game, MLB would have come out with an explantion and/or replayed the game. Especially since their was an ejection at home plate the following day (probably relating to that play). The fact of the matter is that the SS was outright cheating, got caught and as a result, lost the game for his team. His Manager, like a typical "rat", tried to blame the umpires for a mistake his own player made. And you, my fellow bretheren, are finding reasons to condone bushleague play and also blaming MLB umpires for allegedly blowing calls. Yes, they do make mistakes... but a call that decided the outcome of a game would not go unnoticed by MLB if it had been incorrect. Until Dave Hensley or anyone else can produce the source, edition year and what exactly they are quoting from, I will stick to my sources - The Official Baseball Rules and Jim Evans... and I'll put those two up against any "derivatives" from a some MLB Umpire Manual. Oh, I forgot to mention another source - a little umpiring common sense - that can sometimes simplify things as well
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 09:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since Atl Blue quoted the MLB Umpires Manual directly, I think that clearly covers the fact that it was Type B obstruction.
I appreciate Sal's desire to punish this type of behavior, but awarding home in this instance seems unwarranted since the runner at third seemed to clearly be trying to draw a throw and not actually score. Perhaps what the umpire should have done was to call obstruction, see that the runner was only trying to draw a throw and hence not award any bases because none were merited. After the play completed, I think that a case could be made to eject the 3rd baseman for obvious and intentional unsportsmanlike conduct. A Major League ballplayer should know better and since no penalty would be awarded on the play, an ejection would send the message loud and clear that that behavior will not be tolerated in the future. I don't know if an ejection for that would pass muster, but it would most definitely send a message.
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
