Microphones for umpires?

[DG]

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

In this case we went from defense getting two outs after committing an obstruction violation, to offense having bases loaded with no outs. I would say the ruling nullified the act of obstruction.

The crew did not declare the ball dead at the time of obstruction, since there was no play being made on the runner. At least two of the crew are shown making the call, but neither killed the play. They made two out calls following the obstruction so the play was not dead. They let the play go and then ruled accordingly to nullify the act of obstruction.

[Fan10]

Originally Posted by DG

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

In this case we went from defense getting two outs after committing an obstruction violation, to offense having bases loaded with no outs. I would say the ruling nullified the act of obstruction.

The crew did not declare the ball dead at the time of obstruction, since there was no play being made on the runner. At least two of the crew are shown making the call, but neither killed the play. They made two out calls following the obstruction so the play was not dead. They let the play go and then ruled accordingly to nullify the act of obstruction.

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?

[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 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?

[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.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by tibear

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.

R1 was obstructed as he rounded 2nd. At that moment, the umpires must decide where to protect him. He will either be protected to 3rd or back to 2nd. Since R2 stopped at 3rd, the only place to protect R1 was back to 2nd.

R1 did indeed continue toward 3rd before he began his retreat. He was thrown out sliding back into 2nd. Without the obstruction, R1 would have made it back to 2nd safely. The time he lost due to the obstruction directly led to the defense's ability to put him out sliding back into 2nd.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

R1 was obstructed as he rounded 2nd. At that moment, the umpires must decide where to protect him. He will either be protected to 3rd or back to 2nd. Since R2 stopped at 3rd, the only place to protect R1 was back to 2nd.

R1 did indeed continue toward 3rd before he began his retreat. He was thrown out sliding back into 2nd. Without the obstruction, R1 would have made it back to 2nd safely. The time he lost due to the obstruction directly led to the defense's ability to put him out sliding back into 2nd.

I've stayed out of this, but there are a few things in this thread that bear mentioning.

All codes but OBR have gone to "all obstruction is type B." In those codes, all play indeed does go until everything is completed and THEN the umpires place runners where they think they should go absent the obstruction. To stop the play would be, in essence, saying that type B becomes type A and that's simply not the case.

I treat OBR games exactly the same.

Saying that because R1 was put out by a step means that he would've been safe because the obstruction cost him a step is too simplistic in the case where more than one thing happens after the obstruction. No argument if R1 continued to third and was put out by a step there. No argument if R1 headed directly back to second and was put out by a step there. But R1 went to third, thought better of it, and tried to get back to second. Different story.

[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?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by 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?

That's Roder's take anyway. The MLBUM says that time is to be called as soon as a previously obstructed runner is tagged out.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Lawump, you're right. I forgot that there was no rundown.

But if there had been, then according to J/R, at what point of the rundown do you kill the ball? Do you wait until the second fielder touches the ball, or what?

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SAump

I understand that R1 was protected at 2B because of OBS and that R2 was safe at 3B at the TOO. But where was the BR at the TOO? Ten small steps away from 2B. I also have obstruction on the play, but I would like to know how I can protect BR. Would anyone care to explain to me why the BR is protected all the way back to 1B when the BR is not protected by obstruction and he made a huge BR mistake?

Because in Type "B" obstruction, at the moment a "play" is made on the obstructed runner...the ball is dead. Here, R1 is protected back into second. The defense, upon getting the ball back into the infield, imediately made a play on R1 diving back into second. At the time of the tag, the ball is "dead" IF the umpires are protecting R1's return to second. (If they are not protecting it, then the ball remains "live" and R1 would have been out or safe just like a normal play). Because the ball is dead at the time of the tag attempt on R1, the B/R has to go back to first. The B/R cannot be put out because the ball is "dead".

Yesterday, after the fact and a crew huddle, the umpires decided to protect R1 back into second. Thus, they determined that at the moment the tag was applied the ball should have been killed. Thus, they decided that everything that happened after that point, shouldn't have been allowed to occur. SO, they "un-did" it.