Obstruction in Giants/Phillies game

[Toadman15241]

What do you think of the call? I was SHOCKED that we had announcers correctly explaining the baseline. When is the last time you saw that correctly explained on TV?

My thoughts after the replay, it was not obstruction.

[RPatrino]

I was listening on radio, and didn't hear about the obstruction. I did hear the announcers complaining about the strike zone though. Was it that tight?

[DG]

Appeared to be manufactured by the base runner.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I was listening on radio, and didn't hear about the obstruction. I did hear the announcers complaining about the strike zone though. Was it that tight?

I was watching the game off and on and I didn't have a problem with the zone.

[SanDiegoSteve]

As far as the "Obstruction that wasn't," from the live shot angle on TV, I originally called Obstruction (my wife thought I nailed it). After looking at the replay from a better view, it was obvious that Victorino intentionally went after Visquel (who was trying his best to get far out of the way), and was just trying to draw the OBS call (which he got). He definitely left his newly established base path to make the contact, and if any call were to be made, he should have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of his baseline to avoid a tag.

What do you know, Morgan knows a rule. I'm shocked!

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I'm shocked!

I know what its like to be shocked. I watched the Sox and Twins yesterday on MLB Extra Innings, and guess what? The MLB umpire crew actually got a timing play right!!!

R1 and R3, 1 out. Fly ball to left. R3 tags and R1 tags. R1 is toast at second...a good one or two steps BEFORE R3 touches the plate. Tim Tschida correctly waives off the run...and the Twins announcers knew the rule!

I nearly fainted. (I shouldn't have...Jeff Nelson was the second base umpire. IMO, any crew that has Mr. Nelson on it will never screw up a rule. Another umpire might screw it up, but Mr. Nelson will correct it in the "team huddle".)

---Sarcasm ends here---

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

...if any call were to be made, he should have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of his baseline to avoid a tag.

Well, Steve, coming from you that statement shocks me!

To call a runner out for going more than three feet from his basepath to avoid a tag, there has to be a defender in possession of the ball attempting to apply a tag.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Well, Steve, coming from you that statement shocks me!

To call a runner out for going more than three feet from his basepath to avoid a tag, there has to be a defender in possession of the ball attempting to apply a tag.

But wasn't there a fielder chasing him with the ball when he deviated his path? I only saw the play once very briefly, so I'm just asking, Bret.


Tim.

[BretMan]

I honestly haven't seen the play. Links to it have been posted on several websites, so maybe I should take a look.

I was going strictly by Steve's description of the play:

"He definitely left his newly established base path to make the contact, and if any call were to be made, he should have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of his baseline to avoid a tag."

This passage seems to conect two events. Leaving his baseline to establish contact (with Vizquel) and being called out for illegally avoiding a tag.

Since no mention is made of a fielder possessing the ball, or a fielder with the ball attempting a tag, I can only surmise that the description is referring to the runner's path in relation to Vizquel as a violation.

Anything else would be conjecture on my part or an omission from Steve's description.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I honestly haven't seen the play. Links to it have been posted on several websites, so maybe I should take a look.

I was going strictly by Steve's description of the play:

"He definitely left his newly established base path to make the contact, and if any call were to be made, he should have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of his baseline to avoid a tag."

This passage seems to conect two events. Leaving his baseline to establish contact (with Vizquel) and being called out for illegally avoiding a tag.

Since no mention is made of a fielder possessing the ball, or a fielder with the ball attempting a tag, I can only surmise that the description is referring to the runner's path in relation to Vizquel as a violation.

Anything else would be conjecture on my part or an omission from Steve's description.

Bret,

I said "if any call were to be made." That means that I really don't feel the right call was made, and that if any call at all were necessary it would be for running more than three feet out of the basepath to avoid a tag. They were chasing Victorino, and Victorino clearly went way out of his way (almost a direct line to 3rd base) to intentionally run into Visquel. And then he did something smart. Instead of stopping running waiting for a call, he tried to start a new path from that point to second base. Not only was he avoiding a tag, he was initiating contact that would never have happened had he not initiated it purposefully.

Trust me. Bad call.

[BretMan]

Steve,

I trust you!