Microphones for umpires?

[TussAgee11]

Thanks for the clarification on the rule (I missed the precursor to 7.06a that says "when a play is being made on the runner"... opposed to the 7.06b verbage.

A couple more points

1) Am I correct in assuming when you protect someone forward (i.e. to 3rd in this situation) you are also protecting him backwards (to 2nd). Although thats not what the umpire did here, would that be correct if there was no R2 and U2 thought that he would have advanced to 3rd if no obstruction had occured? Seems like he'd be protected both ways.

2) Also, can you never protect him into a base where a runner is occupying the base with no advance eminent? If no, under what circumstances can you protect him to that base?

I guess this is just stuff that I've never thought about before or heard any of my assignors or experienced umpires in our association talk about this stuff, one of the main reasons I value and post on this board - to get that veteran expertise.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I think it is a fair inference that Japanese baseball does not favor routine use.

Nor do I. But this instance was definitely not a routine situation.

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I guess this is just stuff that I've never thought about before or heard any of my assignors or experienced umpires in our association talk about this stuff, one of the main reasons I value and post on this board - to get that veteran expertise.

I concur. I have learned a lot from reading these boards and thank all who give their input.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

1) Am I correct in assuming when you protect someone forward (i.e. to 3rd in this situation) you are also protecting him backwards (to 2nd). Although thats not what the umpire did here, would that be correct if there was no R2 and U2 thought that he would have advanced to 3rd if no obstruction had occured? Seems like he'd be protected both ways.

No, you protect him only one way initially. And then you can use subsequent events during the play, called post-obstruction evidence in Roder's manual, to revise the protection. Post obstruction evidence can include anything and everything that occurs while play is live after the obstruction. Sometimes post-obstruction evidence requires you to extend protection, change protection, or end protection.

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

2) Also, can you never protect him into a base where a runner is occupying the base with no advance eminent? If no, under what circumstances can you protect him to that base?

With Type B obstruction, you must decide which base the obstructed runner could have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred and protect him initially to that base. Obviously, an obstructed runner could not reach an occupied base safely under any circumstances. Only with post-obstruction evidence can you extend protection to that initially occupied base.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

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

Yep and I didn't see anyone trying to signal so. Which then begs the question whose responsibility is it to react accordingly with authority and get this play under control?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

1) The runner lost a step on the obstruction, and was out by a step trying to retreat. But that's beside the point. In Type B obstruction, the umpire must decide where to protect the runner. The only logical place to protect R1 was back to 2nd.

I would disagree. Protect can mean "protect the ability to advance freely" regardless of the outcome of that advancement. I fall to the side that an OB on a runner should not penalize him to his last safely touched base. It should penalize the defense and do so by awarding at least the base ahead when the R is clearly attempting an advance.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by fitump56

I would disagree. Protect can mean "protect the ability to advance freely" regardless of the outcome of that advancement. I fall to the side that an OB on a runner should not penalize him to his last safely touched base. It should penalize the defense and do so by awarding at least the base ahead when the R is clearly attempting an advance.

According to all sources available to me, the umpire must immediately decide to protect the runner to the base he would most likely reach safely had the obstruction not occurred. You cannot protect a runner forward to an occupied base. He could not reach that occupied base safely had the obstruction not occurred.

You can extend, revise, or end the protection based on post-obstruction evidence -- that is, what occurs during continuous action after the obstruction. So you may very well end up protecting him forward. But initially, you have little choice but to protect him back on his retreat.

I agree that an obstructed runner who is making a bona fide attempt to advance when obstructed should indeed always be protected to that advance base. I've argued that for many years on these forums. But a runner cannot make a bona fide advance to an occupied base.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

No, you protect him only one way initially. And then you can use subsequent events during the play, called post-obstruction evidence in Roder's manual, to revise the protection. Post obstruction evidence can include anything and everything that occurs while play is live after the obstruction. Sometimes post-obstruction evidence requires you to extend protection, change protection, or end protection.


With Type B obstruction, you must decide which base the obstructed runner could have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred and protect him initially to that base. Obviously, an obstructed runner could not reach an occupied base safely under any circumstances. Only with post-obstruction evidence can you extend protection to that initially occupied base.

As you say Jim, with Type B obstruction the umpire needs to judge where the runner will be protected to when the obstruction happens and then watch the play to see if that protection should change. In this play, R1 was obstructed no more then 10 feet from second base, then R1 proceeds to run to an occupied base(no one dragged him there, he ran on his own). Once he realizes that he couldn't advance to third because of R2, he tries to retreat back to second.

Given what the offense did after the obstruction, I can't believe that the umpires still decided to protect R1 back to second. R1 and R2 are the only reason R1 is thrown out at third, if anything, R1 should have been protected to third because of where the ball and the runners were at the time of the obstruction, but because of poor baserunning, R2 stayed on third and as a result R1 was stuck between 2nd and 3rd.

The obstruction protection should have ended and a double play called. Poor base running on the offence, plain and simple and BAD call by the umpires.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by tibear

Given what the offense did after the obstruction, I can't believe that the umpires still decided to protect R1 back to second. R1 and R2 are the only reason R1 is thrown out at third, if anything, R1 should have been protected to third because of where the ball and the runners were at the time of the obstruction, but because of poor baserunning, R2 stayed on third and as a result R1 was stuck between 2nd and 3rd.

Assume this play happened without obstruction:

(1) R1, R2. O outs. Line drive to right field that one-hops the right field wall. R2 rounds third and is held up as F9 gets ball back into infield quickly. R1 rounds second and keeps going to second (no doubt believing that R2 will easily score on a one-hopper to the wall). 2/3rds of the way to third, R1 realizes that R2 has been held up. R1 now scurries back to second base.

O.K. Now insert the obstruction:

(2) Same play as above, only R1 is obstructed by F6. The obstruction is pretty severe (there is actual contact between the players that significantly slows down R1). R1, after the obstruction, then goes 2/3rds of the third before realizing that R2 has been held up. R1 now scurries back to second base.

In the actual play (2), he is thrown out by inches diving head first back into second base.

Now the umpire asks, "if not for the obstruction, would R1 have been out?" (In otherwords, would R1 have been out if play (1) had occured instead of play (2) as I described them.)

Comparing play 1 to play 2. The answer is "no, he would have been safe. The obstruction cost him at least a few steps. He was thrown out by mere inches. If he had those few steps that he lost, he would have been safe going back into second." Thus, R1 is protected back into second.

Where the umpires screwed up, is when they failed to call "time" when the tag was applied to R1 as he was diving back into second base.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by lawump

Where the umpires screwed up, is when they failed to call "time" when the tag was applied to R1 as he was diving back into second base.

And this, while definitely a mistake, is not the fiasco/abomination that some (Sox fans) seem to think it is.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tibear

As you say Jim, with Type B obstruction the umpire needs to judge where the runner will be protected to when the obstruction happens and then watch the play to see if that protection should change. In this play, R1 was obstructed no more then 10 feet from second base, then R1 proceeds to run to an occupied base(no one dragged him there, he ran on his own). Once he realizes that he couldn't advance to third because of R2, he tries to retreat back to second.

Given what the offense did after the obstruction, I can't believe that the umpires still decided to protect R1 back to second. R1 and R2 are the only reason R1 is thrown out at third, if anything, R1 should have been protected to third because of where the ball and the runners were at the time of the obstruction, but because of poor baserunning, R2 stayed on third and as a result R1 was stuck between 2nd and 3rd.

The obstruction protection should have ended and a double play called. Poor base running on the offence, plain and simple and BAD call by the umpires.

Southsider, huh?

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

And this, while definitely a mistake, is not the fiasco/abomination that some (Sox fans) seem to think it is.

Lord,

I don't know if I'm exactly sure of your point...but I, personally, don't think it was an "abomination". They were able to correct their mistake at the end of the play...and they got the play right.

However, I do believe that this mistake caused great confusion and did contribute to somewhat of a fiasco. The mistake directly led to defensive manager thinking he had a double play, only to be told by the umpires that the bases were now loaded with no outs. Which led to a llloooonnggg discussion and ejection.

I'm willing to bet (not guarantee), but bet, that if they had called "time" when the tag was applied, then the manager, while he would have come out for a discussion, would likely have not gotten run. As he admitted the next day, he got ran because, to paraphrase, "a manager that is told he has two outs and then told he has no outs, has to get run."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by lawump

Lord,

I don't know if I'm exactly sure of your point...but I, personally, don't think it was an "abomination". They were able to correct their mistake at the end of the play...and they got the play right.

However, I do believe that this mistake caused great confusion and did contribute to somewhat of a fiasco. The mistake directly led to defensive manager thinking he had a double play, only to be told by the umpires that the bases were now loaded with no outs. Which led to a llloooonnggg discussion and ejection.

I'm willing to bet (not guarantee), but bet, that if they had called "time" when the tag was applied, then the manager, while he would have come out for a discussion, would likely have not gotten run. As he admitted the next day, he got ran because, to paraphrase, "a manager that is told he has two outs and then told he has no outs, has to get run."

I agree with everything you say. I was thinking of the fiasco that the announcers made of the play. I don't know why announcers can't get word from the field to explain to their audience what the call is, or, pending that info, why they have to be outraged in their ignorance.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by lawump

Lord,

P.S. Although I'm most grateful for the recognition, since my family arrived in 1848 in this stronghold of democracy, we have not insisted on acknowledgment of the family title.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with everything you say. I was thinking of the fiasco that the announcers made of the play. I don't know why announcers can't get word from the field to explain to their audience what the call is, or, pending that info, why they have to be outraged in their ignorance.

Aha! I got thrown off by your "Sox" reference. I thought you were referring to me personally with the reference (since I had posted in the last day or two on this board, admitting to SDS that I was a Red Sox fan and "teasing" him about the weekend series between my Sox and his Padres).

But now I see you were referencing fans of the "other" Sox team.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

P.S. Although I'm most grateful for the recognition, since my family arrived in 1848 in this stronghold of democracy, we have not insisted on acknowledgment of the family title.

Ahhh, a George Gordon reference.

They know not I knew thee,
Who knew thee too well