Seattle vs Tampa Bay - 08-06-04 - Obstruction?

[Sal Giaco]

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.