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.

[Edited by Peruvian on Aug 7th, 2004 at 07:06 AM]

Which Type - A or B
 

News reports indicate Emmel's response to the opinion that the runner would not have scored was that "It doesn't matter." So, I'm assuming that he determined this to be Type A obstruction, that is, the defense was making a play on him. If that's the case, then his call seems to be correct, although a stretch for Type A obstruction IMO.

Tough call. If the fielder that caught the ball made an immediate direct throw to Lopez at third or to home it would qualify as Type A. Anything else would be Type B and Crawford would have stayed at third. G.

In this situation, there's only one play to be made, stop the run from scoring. If it wasn't the bottom of the 10th, with the winning run on third, then there's other plays that could be made. But in this oddball case there's only one.

It's not just the play, it's the situation. If it were the top of the tenth it's probably not called.

Not necessarily:

OBR 7.06 (b)

"If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the pay shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call "Time" and impose such penalites, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

The umpire signalled a delayed dead ball, an indication this was Type B obstruction. He definitely did not signal "Time" as he would in Type A.

Not necessarily:

OBR 7.06 (b)

"If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the pay shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call "Time" and impose such penalites, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

The umpire signalled a delayed dead ball, an indication this was Type B obstruction. He definitely did not signal "Time" as he would in Type A.
---------------------------

That has not been mentioned. If he kept that B view when Emmel awarded home he was saying that the run would have scored absent the obstruction. From what I was told, Crawford didn't have a chance to score on the play.

If Emmel did change it back to A it would be automatic and I've seen MLU's make that, after the fact change, before. G.

Exactly - and that's the point. He had absolutely no chance of scoring. He bluffed just like anyone does.

That would be your judgment. Not necessarily the umpire's. He has pretty wide latitude here. He can do whatever he thinks would "nullify" the obstruction. Someone suggested elsewhere that the "bushness" of the act may have contributed to U3 sending the runner home.

I think Peruvian's judgment was shared with a whole lot, if not all of the people that saw, read or heard of the situations, except Emmel.

You say the MLU has wide latitude. Let's look at this play that happened last week and posted here:

"This just happened in the Giants/Reds game (top 7th, no out). R1, bouding grounder hit right at F3. F3 goes to field it and R1 who had started to run to second turned around and went back toward first, stopping directly in front of F3. Ball got past F3, R1 to second and BR to first, play scored E-3.

Anyone else see this play, and shouldn't that be called interference?"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Mr. T's reply:

Wellll,
Because at the MLB level it is not interference.

Don't confuse professional baseball and games you work between the local A & P and Sid's Texaco.

In MLB the ball would have to hit the runner . . . this play is just accepted "gamesmanship" as practice at the professional level.

Tee
----------------------------------
If their not going to call the second play interference and then call the first play obstruction I think they should go back to the drawing board and let people know just what latitude they actualy do have.

Something seems to be out of order. Talk about consistency, sheez, G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 8th, 2004 at 10:36 AM]

I see in the Spokane paper that Joe West has said that in the umpire's judgment a play was being made on the runner. Thus those arguing Type A seem to be correct. Seeing the video again this morning, I don't agree that a play was being made AT THE TIME OF THE OBSTRUCTION, but I know it doesn't matter what I think.

As a point of enlightenment for those who may believe this call shouldn't have been made at the MLB level, Section 6.3 of the MLB Umpires Manual, entitled <b>OBSTRUCTION AND INTERFERENCE PLAYS: APPROVED RULINGS</b> includes this play:

<font color=blue>(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.</font>

Pretty much the same play, wouldn't you say?

Mmmmmm,
 

"Pretty much the same play, wouldn't you say?"

****

Yes.

Tee

"SNIP"

"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."
--------------------------------

The play is the same but the ruling called for by the manual isn't. As you can see, the ruling from the manual clearly calls for Type "B" obstruction and not Type "A".

Emmel also signaled Type "B" when he pointed at Lopez rather than call time, kill the play and make the award as required under Type "A". G.

(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.

Well, that just about clears it up for me. Wish I had a copy of that book. :)

The MLBUM clearly says that this action is OBS. But it says it is type B OBS. The only way to award home is to "judge" that the runner would have scored absent the OBS.

The OBS call was a good one. The "judgment" to award home was a bad one. Personally, I think Emmell got caught up in the moment of making the unusual call and felt the defense needed to be "punished", so he awarded home.

Besides, what is R3 doing watching the catch anyway? His job is to be on the base, looking toward the plate, and waiting for the call from his 3B coach on when to leave. If he was really trying to score on the play, it was NOT his job to be watching the catch. That would mean either facing LF (which he appeared to be doing), or looking over his shoulder, both things that would slow him down. I think it was pretty obvious from R3's actions that he had no intent (or possibility) of scoring on the play.

That is not really true. So coaches go by the belief that if the runner can see the catch then he goes by that. If the play was more behind him, towards the line, then use the coach. It is really not that big of difference if the runner sees it himself and has to turn a little to get going in the right direction, or to wait on a coach. Also, what if the fans are so loud that he cannot hear the coach? More the norm for a major league stadium. Better for the runner to be looking.

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.

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?

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.

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!

<i> Originally posted by Peruvian </i>

<b> 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. </b>

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

The throw could have been cutoff because R3 probably stopped his advance down the line by then. That is not at all unusual. So in reality a play was made on him. If the throw went towards second base, then I would agree and say there was not. However 99% of the time that throw will go towards home/cutoff around the mound as a play on the runner to try and keep the runner from advancing to home. Thus enough to constitute a type A and award of home.

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.

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!

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.

---------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

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.

Sal:


From the MLB Umpire's Manual:

<font color=blue>(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.</font>

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.

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

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.

Hmm. Not sure why I was brought back into this thread, but I will be happy to post the text on the first page of the MLB Umpire's Manual that I have:

MLB UMPIRE MANUAL
PROCEDURES
AND INTERPRETATIONS
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
Copyright ® 2002 Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
All rights reserved.
Developed by the
Joint Committee on Training
Ralph E. Nelson, Jr., Chairman
Frank Pulli
Steve Palermo
Tom Lepperd
Randy Marsh
Tim McClelland
Mark Hirschbeck
The Joint Committee on Training wishes
to express gratitude to the following
umpires who contributed significantly to
the development of this Manual:
Jeff Nelson
Jim Reynolds
Editing, Design and Layout by
Tom Lepperd
<hr>

Notwithstanding the MLBUM ruling that says to call this play type B obstruction, I agree with your rationale that the play deserves a more aggressive penalization because of the unsportsmanlike nature of the infraction.

Sometimes you have to not let the rules get in the way of doing the right thing.

Sal,
With all due respect, this cannot be Type A obstruction. At the time of the obstruction, the ball was in the air, true. However the ball was in the air as the result of the batter hitting the ball. The only play being made at that point was on the BR. It was his ball that was hit and the outfielder was making a play on the BR by catching his flyball and recording an out on the BR.

The note you refer to in 7.06 (a) refers to a thrown ball in flight The situation you refered to from the Evan's baseball academy involves Type A obstruction because the ball in flight resulted from a continuing play on the runner, ie. being caught in a rundown.

The call of obstruction in this case was made while a ball was in the air, but the play being made on that ball in the air was being made on the BR, since it was his fly ball.

How can you argue, if a fly ball is in the air and obstruction is called relating to F3, that a play was being made on F3? I don't think you can really because the play is going to be made on the BR, by catching his fly ball.

I agree with you in wanting to punish the defense, which is why I recommend ejecting the offender.

Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to type the inside cover. Although it is a little dated (2002), I would tend to believe that the rule in question here probably has not changed since then. However, if that is how the rule is stated in the MLB UMPIRE MANUAL PROCEDURES AND INTERPRETATIONS, then the Mariners may have a legitimate argument.

I thought the phrase you ended your post "Sometimes you have to not let the rules get in the way of doing the right thing" was an intersting one. I wonder if MLB agreed with your statement because they haven't yet done anything with the protest... or have they officially denied it???

Jim Evans talked about "defining moments" at umpire school - plays that stirred up a lot of conversation and sometimes, controversy. I think he called them defining moments because they make us look at the rules that govern the game and how they perhaps need to be changed to keep up with the changing ways of the game. This play, in my eyes, is a defining moment and atleast, calls for a change in the MLB Umpire Manual on how the penalty should be handled. Just my "amateur" opinion.

Kaliix,
You bring up some very good points regarding a batted ball in flight on the BR vs. a thrown ball in flight on a rundown. I think we (myself, you, Atl Blue, Gee, Dave Hensley, etc) all bring up some valid arguments for both sides of this issue.

I will rest my case on this statement and you guys can take it for what it worth (probably not much)... I am not an umpire who "takes the law into my own hands" however, I will not let a player with unfair intentions get the benefit of a call after blantently and delibertly attempting to cheat his way to get an advantage. By the book, atleast the MLB Manual anyways, Emmel may have enforced the penalty incorrectly and if so, the protest should be upheld and the game replayed from that point. However, the Interpretation in that manual, in my "amateur" opinion, should be changed immediately so that the game is not compromised by a "loop hole" act by another player. Great discussion everyone!!

Sal:

Dave beat me to the Title Page. As you can see, it is a very "official" source. It is also not available to the public, and I'm not even sure if it is available to the teams (although it should be - these aren't "umpire secrets" in here).

Much of the MLBUM came from the PBUC Umpire Manual, which is available to the public. However, the above case play is NOT in the PBUC manual.

Both the MLBUM and the PBUC manual both talk about the "delayed" type A obstruction about which you discussed. However, in both, they talk about a batter-runner that is obstructed before reaching first. Nowhere does it say anything about a runner being obstructed while the ball is in the air and calling it "delayed type A". The reason is, with a batted ball in the air, how can a runner be type A obstructed? He can't, because with the batted ball in the air, no one is making a play on the runner. They can't, the defense doesn't have the ball. There is no such thing, by definition, of type A obstruction on a runner while a batted ball is still in the air.

The reason the "delayed type A" is needed for the batter-runner is because 7.06a specifically says if a batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first, it is type A obstruction. Well, cooler heads prevailed in the interpretations, and the professional interpretation is now to delay type A on a batter-runner if the batted ball is still in the air, the reasoning being if the ball is caught, then obviously, the obstruction had nothing to do with the play. Call it a "legal fiction".

In Evans Manual, the ONLY time he says to call a "delayed type A" is when the batter-runner is obstructed on a ball that is still in the air. If the ball is on the ground, kill the play. Evans also gives three examples of runners in a rundown when obstruction occurs. In all three examples, he says the play is killed immediately, as it is type A obstruction.

Emmel had his heart in the right place. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the rule to back him up. Does the rule need to be changed? That may be. In the mean time, am I bashing a "fellow ump"? Well, if it were my crew, maybe I would try to find a way to defend the call. But I am a ticket buying fan of MLB, and as such, he isn't a "fellow blue", Emmel is a professional on the field, paid a lot of money to know the rules, and he blew one. It happens, I'm not out to hang the guy, but I'm not going to defend him either.

Just like him, I have to call 'em like I see 'em. And I saw Emmel blow this call.

As for the "protest", there was no protest. There was a lot of complaining, b*itching, moaning, and griping, but there was no official protest. Melvin was told by Emmel and Joe West that the obstruction was a "judgment call" and obviously, judgment calls are not protestable. But if Melvin had said, "I'm not protesting the obstruction call, I am protesting the awarding of home, as this is a type B obstruction, and no automatic award is applied", he MIGHT have had a chance. Of course, if Emmel said, "I am awarding home because in my JUDGMENT, the runner would have scored without the obstruction", then again, the call would not have been protestable, but Emmel would have looked like an idiot.

But no, Melvin was too busy arguing that it was not obstruction at all, which, a) he was not going to win, and b) was wrong.

Managers need a coach on the bench that know the rules as well as the umpires. On the PGA tour, it has been suggested by Tom Meeks (Rules Director of the USGA) that players pay their caddies to go to the USGA/PGA Rules Clinics, so that SOMEONE on their "team" knows the rules and can keep the golfer out of trouble. I think baseball managers should do the same thing: have a coach on the team attend training, clinics, maybe even umpire school so that SOMEONE in the dugout knows the rules, and knows when to ask the right questions.

Just suppose, in the Mariners/Devil Rays game in question, Melvin had come out of the dugout saying, "Guys, OK, you called obstruction on my shortstop. That's judgment, I can't argue that. But you awarded Crawford home as if it were type A obstruction, when clearly it was type B. If so, I think I would like to protest the award."

West, Emmel and the rest of the crew get together without the managers and say, "Damn, I think he's right. I guess we need to put the runner back." Of course, Pinella would have to get run, because you know he would be coming out of the other dugout as soon as the umps unscored the run.

But no, no manager thinks that much about the rules, and Melvin comes out arguing the judgment part of the call, which immediately turns into a dead end. Then he shoots his mouth off at the plate comference the next night and gets run before the game ever starts.

If you read what West and McKean say after the game, their defense of the call (and their apparent contradictions between what was said to the managers and what was said to the public an hour later) was laughable.

The simple answer is, Emmel blew the call and West didn't talk him out of it. That's bad umpiring, and MLB will never come out and say if Emmel, West and crew were ever "disciplined" for their error.

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

Atl Blue,
You state your case very well and according to the way the interpretation is written in the MLB Umpire Manual, you have a legitimate protest.

From the moment I saw the play, I thought Emmel made a great call to point out the obstruction. Believe it or not, I initially thought it was Type B obstruction and that he enforced the penalty incorrectly (see my posts on Umpire.org under the Professional section.

After a few days of pondering, I realized that in order to prevent players from doing this all of the time, perhaps Emmel was correct in issuing an automatic one base award. However, after becoming aware of the play described in the MLBUM, it seems like he may have "overstepped his bound" (not on the obstruction call, but enforcing the incorrect penalty).

Once again, thanks guys for the great discussion and I hope we have more like this in the future - I think we all benefit from each other's knowledge and experiences. Take care.

Thank you Joe West.