|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 04:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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] 
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 11:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 11:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 12:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2004, 02:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 01:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
GB
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 08:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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]
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 11:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
GB
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 11:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 OBSTRUCTION AND INTERFERENCE PLAYS: APPROVED RULINGS includes this play:
(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. Pretty much the same play, wouldn't you say?
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 12:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 01:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
(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. 
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 09:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
