Microphones for umpires?

[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.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I treat OBR games exactly the same.

Then you're choosing to umpire OBR games with your own set of rules. You can argue the merits and logic of the rule...and whether it should be changed (as you implicitly did in the last paragraph of your post)...but to change it on your own by inserting your own (FED or NCAA) rule is something I have no respect for, unfortunately. Just so we're clear, I usually always respect your posts and positions...but not this one.

If one of my umpires (in my association that I'm President of) admitted to using OBR in a FED game or FED in an OBR game because he didn't like a particular rule or rule interpretation I'd come down pretty hard on him. I'm understanding of guys confusing one for the other during the heat of a game...but not understanding a rule is a totally different animal than intentionally ignoring a particular rule because of the umpire's particular view of the rule. You're doing a diservice to the league that retained your services, and your association's other umpires who, possibly, will have to explain to an irate coach why the same play got ruled on differently by different umpires.

And there is no wiggle room here, as you pointed out. Obstruction is a MAJOR difference between OBR and FED/NCAA. Treating an OBR "Type B" obstruction the same as you treat FED or NCAA obstruction is wrong. OBR requires the umpire to kill the ball when a play is being made on the protected runner.

And (it is not clear in your post) if you are treating OBR "Type A" obstruction as you would in FED (keep the ball "live")...if you are, then that's, IMO, even worse.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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.

I don't like OBR OBS but I won't make a significant rule interp like this.

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.

Once OBS occurs, then all things considered need to be in favor of the offense. If not, you are, in essence, protecting the rule violation by the defense. I bend over backwards to reward the offense and to penalize the dfense where judgment is allowed. I simply do not understand why the D doesn't get the hell out of the way.