Microphones for umpires?

[DG]

Originally Posted by Fan10

How would sending the runner who was tagged out in a rundown between third and home back to third be considred nullifying the obstruction when that runner was not obstructed?

Because offensive confusion was caused by the obstruction and subsequent putout of the obstructed runner. The play should probably have been killed when the obstructed runner was put out and then the out on the runner between 3rd and home would not have happened.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by DG

The play should probably have been killed when the obstructed runner was put out and then the out on the runner between 3rd and home would not have happened.

Actually, it should've been stopped even sooner -- when the protected runner (R2) was caught in the rundown.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Actually, it should've been stopped even sooner -- when the protected runner (R2) was caught in the rundown.

You have a point there.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Watching today's (Sunday's) Cubs-White Sox game brought a question to mind. I'll let others debate whether or not the umps got the ruling right on the obstruction play as I have no idea. But in a situation like that, especially on the major league level, I wish the crew chief would have a microphone to explain the ruling. Either over the PA system like the NFL refs do or just to the press box so the broadcast guys would know.

What are your thoughts, positive and negative?

Why not? A good umpire should have nothing to fear from this introspection.

[jkumpire]

There are several reasons why not:

1. It is hard to keep up with conversations when every other (%(&$($($^(*&% &^&%(&^$#@@&% word is $#@!^@&$% so you can't @$@^$&***$ use it on @#$@%Y%$ TV. And why should people like me have to listen to that @#@^^% on my $@@&&#(%*%*&^()) TV. And hearing some @@^$$&# player or &)(*^^&^) Manager talking about the *(^%&$^##& game needs to stay as )&^$^#$ private as (*&^(%*#$#*& possible.

2. In my games, there are conversations between me and players or even coaches that need to stay private, I would have to think that MLB games have tons of that stuff that should never get on the air, and will inflame things on the field if they do.

3. If fans want an idea of what PU/F2 talk is about, tell them to rent Bull Durham. other than that, let them enjoy what they see, not what they don't need to hear. Let them hear the educated broadcast team instead, esp. such baseball heavyweights as McCarver.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

There are several reasons why not:

1. It is hard to keep up with conversations when every other (%(&$($($^(*&% &^&%(&^$#@@&% word is $#@!^@&$% so you can't @$@^$&***$ use it on @#$@%Y%$ TV. And why should people like me have to listen to that @#@^^% on my $@@&&#(%*%*&^()) TV. And hearing some @@^$$&# player or &)(*^^&^) Manager talking about the *(^%&$^##& game needs to stay as )&^$^#$ private as (*&^(%*#$#*& possible.

2. In my games, there are conversations between me and players or even coaches that need to stay private, I would have to think that MLB games have tons of that stuff that should never get on the air, and will inflame things on the field if they do.

3. If fans want an idea of what PU/F2 talk is about, tell them to rent Bull Durham. other than that, let them enjoy what they see, not what they don't need to hear. Let them hear the educated broadcast team instead, esp. such baseball heavyweights as McCarver.

The OP isn't (I don't think) suggesting that all conversations be broadcast to the crowd. Rather, he's suggesting that the result of "unusual" plays be explained -- much as the R in football doesn't broadcast all conversations, but explains penalties. Here, either Bucknor or West could have said, "R1 was obstructed at second. When a play was made on him, the ball became dead. Nothing after that is allowed to stand. All runners are placed at the base occupied when the ball became dead."

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The OP isn't (I don't think) suggesting that all conversations be broadcast to the crowd. Rather, he's suggesting that the result of "unusual" plays be explained -- much as the R in football doesn't broadcast all conversations, but explains penalties. Here, either Bucknor or West could have said, "R1 was obstructed at second. When a play was made on him, the ball became dead. Nothing after that is allowed to stand. All runners are placed at the base occupied when the ball became dead."

That is exactly what I was suggesting, Bob. Leave the mic off at all times until something like that comes up and needs explaining. Granted, managers will then want nitpicky stuff explained to the crowd. But that would be up to the umpire.

[LMan]

from ChicagoSports:

Call of the wild (play): Brutal
Only Cubs' Hughes nails crazy sequence

An obstruction of justice? Actually, no

June 25, 2007


Moments after the Cubs' baserunning cirque de soleil ended Sunday and the umpires ruled everyone safe, White Sox radio play-by-play man Ed Farmer said: "Whoever makes this call, it's the wrong call. This is brutal."

Sox TV voice Hawk Harrelson called it "B.S." three times before proclaiming: "I'll guarantee you, this will be one protest that's upheld."


Neither Harrelson nor partner Darrin Jackson had any idea why the umpires huddled after the play.

If only someone on the telecast had been listening to Cubs radio play-by-play man Pat Hughes, who immediately identified the cause of the controversy.

"There's going to be interference called on the shortstop, [Juan] Uribe," Hughes said. "The runner from first was [Angel] Pagan. He smacked into the shortstop as he tried to round second base. And now the umpires will get together and sort it all out."

Farmer's analyst, Chris Singleton, also noticed the interference.

"Pagan and Uribe bumped pretty hard," he said. "That threw Pagan off."

But Farmer either wasn't listening to Singleton or didn't think the interference would be a factor in the call.

"I guarantee this: If [umpire] Joe West contradicts the play that happened, [Ozzie] Guillen's going to be tossed," Farmer said. "There should be two outs and [Mark] DeRosa at second."

Then a revved-up Farmer fired this off: "The blood in Ozzie Guillen's veins has started to heat up. If this play is reversed, he will come out of [the dugout] like there's a Chrysler engine attached to his backside."

But Guillen didn't even seem as fired up as Harrelson and Jackson.

Jackson: "It's not that confusing to me. They get [Felix] Pie and that's all there is to it. Pagan was called out. He's just a gone goose, as is Pie. I don't know why [Pagan] is even on the field. He was called out. It's really a straightforward play. … This could be the worst call I've ever seen."

Harrelson thought the umpires might call a triple play. After the umpires did just the opposite, Harrelson said: "I've never seen anything like that in my whole career, as a player coming up in Little League to D-ball to C-ball to A-ball to Triple A to the big leagues.

"This is absolute B.S. There should be two out and a man on second. And they've got the bases loaded and no out. Dadgum right this game's going to be played under protest."

After a replay showed Uribe's collision with Pagan, Harrelson said: "Anytime I've ever seen an obstruction play, they call a dead ball. A dead ball means that everything stops right there."

But in this case, everything was just getting started.

[jkumpire]

Since NFL games do not allow protests, and crews have known to make mistakes in games on rule and judgement call, it is still a bad idea. How do you explain Type A obstruction to a crowd who thinks they are getting hosed? Or a manager who will use an explaination to whip up the home crowd by trying to show they are wrong.

IMO it's a bad idea all the way around.

[Rcichon]

Potential to throw an entire crew under the bus.
Bad idea IMO.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by SAump

After watching the White Sox/Cubs obstruction replay, I had questions about the TOO.
First, R3 stopped as 3B. Second, obstruction took place on R2 at 2B.
Third, R1 was near 2B at the TOO. Fourth, F3 had the ball in his glove near 1B at TOO.
With a delayed dead ball, negate the results of the obstruction, but why allow R1 to return to 1B.
Should R1, caught so far off 1B, have been returned safely to 1B with F3 holding the ball there at TOO?

The umpires screwed up. They should've stopped play when R1 was in the rundown between 2nd and 3rd. At that time, R2 was on 3rd and the BR legally occupied first. So they corrected their mistake and put the runners back to where they were when R1 was tagged.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by DG

Because offensive confusion was caused by the obstruction and subsequent putout of the obstructed runner. The play should probably have been killed when the obstructed runner was put out and then the out on the runner between 3rd and home would not have happened.

No "probably". Under "obstruction without a play", the ball remains "live" until a play or attempted play is made on the protected runner. Here, the umpires (in the end, and after a crew huddle) decided to protect R1's return into second base. At the moment the tag was applied on R1, "time" should have been called.

They didn't call "time" and ended up with a lllloooonnnnggggg delay and an ejection as a result. I think, after having watched the play 10 times, that they got the call right. I just think there would have been a lot less confusion if they had called "time" instead of "out" at the moment the tag was applied to R1 diving back into second.

Here is what went on (with my not-so-humble analysis):

(1) R1, R2, long hard drive that short-hops the right field wall. R2 advances to third. R1, as he is rounding second, runs right into a middle infielder. At the time of the obstruction, both U2 and U3 point and call obstruction. At the time of the obstruction, it appears that the ball had just been released by F9. The ball went over the head of the cutoff man in shallow right field, and was caught on a hop near first base by a defensive player (couldn't tell if it was F3), but the fielder was only a few feet away from first base.

(2) IMHO, umpires were correct to keep the ball "live" as no play or attempted play was being made on the obstructed runner.

(3) Pursuant to J/R, on an "obstruction with no play", "the umpire must immediately decide what base the runner would have acquired (or returned to safely) had the obstruction not occurred. He then protects the runner to that base."

(4) After the obstruction, R1 continues running toward third base. He advances approximately 2/3rds of the way to third base...when he realizes that R2 has stopped and stayed at third base. Not that it matters, but in the replay, you can't see the third base coach, so you can't tell if R2 was being held up by the base coach because the ball was on its way back to the infield...or if he stopped because he was confused by U3's obstruction call. R1 then retreats to second base where he is tagged out on a close (not very close), but close play at second.

(5) J/R says an umpire can consider action after the obstruction to determine what to do (if anything) with the obstructed runner. Thus, while at the time of the obstruction U2 and U3 may have "protected" R1 to third base (had R2 gone home), U2 and U3 may "adjust" their protection.

(6) Thus, in this case the umpires would have to ask "what would have happened if R1 was not obstructed?" Assume there was no obstruction and R1 had his head down and ran through second base and continued 2/3rds of the way to third, before realizing that R2 had not gone home. R1 then decides to retreat to second. U2 then must decide: if not for the obstruction, would R1 have been safe at second on the retreat? After the play (in the crew huddle), the umpires, obviously, answered this question with a, "yes, he would have been safe." (Which I agree with...it was a close play at second, and the obstruction cost him several steps, IMO.)

(7) J/R says, on obstruction without a play, even though the ball does not become immediately dead..."the ball becomes dead if a fielder possesses the ball and actually tags the protected runner, or forces him into a rundown..." That is what happened in this play...however, U2 did not call time, but rather he called R1 "out". This is where they caused a lot of confusion.

(8) The B/R, seeing R1 going to third, tried to advance to first, but got caught in a rundown (between first and second) after R1 had been called out at second. During this rundown, R2 tries to go home, where he is called "out". B/R now advances to second.

(9) White Sox think they have a double play. Umps get together for a long time and decide that R1 was protected back into second. The ball was dead at that moment...so anything that happened after that was "void". Bases are loaded with no outs.

Clearly, if U2 had called "time" instead of "out" on the play on R1 back into second base...then a lot of subsequent confusion would have been avoided.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by SAump

After watching the White Sox/Cubs obstruction replay, I had questions about the TOO.
First, R3 stopped as 3B. Second, obstruction took place on R2 at 2B.
Third, R1 was near 2B at the TOO. Fourth, F3 had the ball in his glove near 1B at TOO.
With a delayed dead ball, negate the results of the obstruction, but why allow R1 to return to 1B.
Should R1, caught so far off 1B, have been returned safely to 1B with F3 holding the ball there at TOO?
Clearly, everything that unfolded after TOO was due to R1 forcing R2 off 2B.

Firstly there is no R3 on this play, it is BR, R1 and R2.
Secondly, BR isn't "forcing" R1 off second, R1 chose to proceed to third base(he was forced to run to second not third).

Can't tell exactly when the obstruction took place but we know it happened right at second base and by the time the ball gets to the infield R1 is at least halfway to third. R1 then realizes that R2 is standing on third and tries to retreat to second and is tagged out.

The play on R1 wasn't immediately after the obstruction and didn't ultimately prevent him from gaining access to the base to which he was obstructed(3rd). He was tagged out going back to a base to which he wasn't obstructed (2nd).

How can the umpires say that the obstruction prevented R1 from getting back to second? R1 made the decision to continue on towards third base after the obstruction call without looking to see what R2 was doing and as a result got caught too far off the base to get back in time. If anything the obstruction prevented the runner from getting even further away from second and made the tag at second closer then it should have been!

Lawump, I agree with your analysis of what took place on the call and that the umpires determined the obstruction prevented R1 from getting back to second but I'm just not buying it.

All I see is bad baserunning.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Hawk Harrelson and Darrin Jackson (and before him The Wimperoo) are the biggest homers in all of sports broadcasting, and that's a lot coming from me. The Padres have some pretty homer broadcasters too, but none like these guys, especially Harrelson.

Of course Hawk is going to think the umpires blew the call, as he bleeds black and white. He was the only one in that article who at least knew that it was obstruction, not interference. That always cracks me up.

I think Harrelson thought that all obstruction is immediate dead ball, when in reality this was type B.

Lawump, you should send your above post to the Chicago White Sox, so they can fully understand the situation. Except change (8) to "tried to advance to second."

[SanDiegoSteve]

(7) J/R says, on obstruction without a play, even though the ball does not become immediately dead..."the ball becomes dead if a fielder possesses the ball and actually tags the protected runner, or forces him into a rundown..." That is what happened in this play...however, U2 did not call time, but rather he called R1 "out". This is where they caused a lot of confusion.

Lawump,

Doesn't this mean that U2 should have called "Time" as soon as the rundown with R1 began, when R2 was 2/3 of the way to third base? Why would he need to wait until a tag was applied, since the obstructed runner was now being played upon in a rundown?