Microphones for umpires?

[gotblue?]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

I guess I am in the same camp as Tibear. You ask us to "compar[e] play 1 to play 2". You say nothing about a throw to attempt to retire R1 at 2B in Play 1. Why do you assume that R1 gets back to 2B safely in Play 1?

It appears that your basis for ruling is that you are saying that R1, in both situations, would round 2B and run to the exact same point between 2B and 3B (say, for example, 30 feet from 3B), and then return to 2B. In that case, R1 in Play 1 will do that route more quickly than would R1 in Play 2, in that R1 was slowed en route (advancing) by the obstruction. So, if the obstructed R1 is tagged out on a close play, then under your scenario, he should be protected back to 2B, because the R1 in Play 1 who ran the same route without being obstructed would have made it back to 2B safely.

That is not what would likely happen in reality, however. The unobstructed R1 would be running full tilt toward 3B, and, at some point, would recognize that 3B is occupied, and would try to return to 2B. In that same amount of time, the obstructed R1 would not have advanced as close to 3B as did the unobstructed R1, as he was slowed by the obstruction. Thus, his retreat to 2B would be shorter. It is that "same amount of time" that I find to be important, in that this is probably about when it became clear that R2 was not going to advance to HP. Further, a runner who has been obstructed is more likely to be aware of the status of other runners than is the runner (unobstructed R1) who is motoring along assuming that R2 will advance to home and he (R1) will advance from 1B to 3B on a ball hit to the RF wall.

Whether you agree with that or not, I believe that the call/ruling could and should be based on something else that you [edit: or someone else] have referenced. The initial decision of the base umpire(s) probably was to protect R1 back to 2B, due to 3B being occupied, in the event that the defense was able to quickly get the ball to 2B and tag R1 while he was still overcoming the effect of the obstruction. The instant that he, in a separate and discrete act, took off for 3B, I would have his protection back to 2B disappearing, in that the obstruction had no effect on his ability to return to 2B at that point.

As Tibear has said, poor baserunning is the root cause of this mess.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by gotblue?

I guess I am in the same camp as Tibear. You ask us to "compar[e] play 1 to play 2". You say nothing about a throw to attempt to retire R1 at 2B in Play 1. Why do you assume that R1 gets back to 2B safely in Play 1?

It appears that your basis for ruling is that you are saying that R1, in both situations, would round 2B and run to the exact same point between 2B and 3B (say, for example, 30 feet from 3B), and then return to 2B. In that case, R1 in Play 1 will do that route more quickly than would R1 in Play 2, in that R1 was slowed en route (advancing) by the obstruction. So, if the obstructed R1 is tagged out on a close play, then under your scenario, he should be protected back to 2B, because the R1 in Play 1 who ran the same route without being obstructed would have made it back to 2B safely.

That is not what would likely happen in reality, however. The unobstructed R1 would be running full tilt toward 3B, and, at some point, would recognize that 3B is occupied, and would try to return to 2B. In that same amount of time, the obstructed R1 would not have advanced as close to 3B as did the unobstructed R1, as he was slowed by the obstruction. Thus, his retreat to 2B would be shorter. It is that "same amount of time" that I find to be important, in that this is probably about when it became clear that R2 was not going to advance to HP. Further, a runner who has been obstructed is more likely to be aware of the status of other runners than is the runner (unobstructed R1) who is motoring along assuming that R2 will advance to home and he (R1) will advance from 1B to 3B on a ball hit to the RF wall.

Whether you agree with that or not, I believe that the call/ruling could and should be based on something else that you [edit: or someone else] have referenced. The initial decision of the base umpire(s) probably was to protect R1 back to 2B, due to 3B being occupied, in the event that the defense was able to quickly get the ball to 2B and tag R1 while he was still overcoming the effect of the obstruction. The instant that he, in a separate and discrete act, took off for 3B, I would have his protection back to 2B disappearing, in that the obstruction had no effect on his ability to return to 2B at that point.

As Tibear has said, poor baserunning is the root cause of this mess.

Another poster in another place made these same points to me. I don't disagree with R1 having gone further toward third if he was not obstructed. I am not arguing with your logic. I'm just stating how this (former) MiLB umpire was instructed to call it.

Here is what I posted on the other discussion (In that discussion the other side had argued that my logic was wrong in that R1 would have gotten closer to third if he was not obstruction):

An example from J/R:

"R2 and R1, two outs. The batter grounds a ball toward the hole between F5 and F6. F5 dives for the ball, but cannot reach it and it gets by him. R2 has to sidestep F5 to avoid contact -- obstruction has occurred. The F6 is able to field the ball and he fires to F3, but the B/R is safe. After rounding third aggressively, R2: (my emphasis)

stops (past third base) and is returning to third base as F5 gloves a throw from F3 and tags R2 returning to third. Ruling: Time is called. R2's return to third is protected."

In the above example, one could argue, as you have in the original play, that R2 rounded third base too far, and that that is his own fault (that is, the obstruction did not cause him to round third base as far as he did) and thus the "out" should stand. However, that's not what J/R says.

Also note that in this play from J/R, the obstruction occurred between second and third, BUT J/R is going to protect R2 back to third (he's not even between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, but he's still going to be protected.) The bottom line in the J/R play is that the obstruction cost him a step or two, and if R2 was thrown out going back into third by a step or two, then "time" is going to be called and the runner is going to be protected back into the base.

I'm not arguing/defending the logic. I'm just stating how this (former) MiLB umpire was instructed to call it.

[gotblue?]

Lawump,

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I really "did not get it" from your initial post, and I am not 100% sure that I "get it" entirely from the situation described in J/R (I do not have this, nor do I have anywhere near the training that you have had), but I will try to learn from it, and it certainly makes the crew's ultimate ruling somewhat more understandable.

Possibly, the concept is that the obstructed runner is likely going to push the advance envelope a little more to "make up for lost ground" caused by the obstruction, so the protection to the retreat base is going to be more than otherwise expected (expected by me, at least).

[fitump56]

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.

Walk me through this. R2 posseses 3B, R1 2B. So to begin R1 is protected to 3B

In this play, R1 was obstructed no more then 10 feet from second base,

Why does this make a difference or doea it?

then R1 proceeds to run to an occupied base(no one dragged him there, he ran on his own)

I'll assume this is irreleavnt.

Once he realizes that he couldn't advance to third because of R2, he tries to retreat back to second.

Also irrelevant as to why he retreated and this play.

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,

Is there not a conflict between where you can be protected since 3B is occupied? This is how I interp what you are saying.

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.

If R1 is obstructed, then why reverse the protection?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You can't obstruct a runner standing on a base.

Yes you can. Pagan was running and when he was at second he was obstructed. A runner can, indeed, be obstructed while on a base.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Yes you can. Pagan was running and when he was at second he was obstructed. A runner can, indeed, be obstructed while on a base.

Your case is not apposite. I said that a runner cannot be obstructed while STANDING on a base. In your case, the runner is obstructed as he runs past a base, perhaps WHILE (momentarily) ON the base. Not the same.

It is impossible to "impede the progress" of someone who is standing still.

[UMP25]

Then there are those runners who are "standing still" because someone is blocking their ability to go anywhere.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Then there are those runners who are "standing still" because someone is blocking their ability to go anywhere.

Of course it matters whether the standing happens before or after the alleged obstruction.

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

2 points of clarification I wish to get insight on.

1) I still don't understand how the obstruction allowed R1 to get back to second quicker. If there is no obstruction, he makes it farther towards 3rd base, which puts him in even more of a rundown, as 3rd was occupied by R2. To me, negating the obstruction makes R1 even MORE out in that run down. How did F6 slowing R1s ADVANCE obstruct R1s RETREAT towards 2nd?

2) MLB rule 7.06 reads "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out." Now it seems as though R1 had legally touched 2nd, and therefore, should be awarded third. All preceding runners (which would be R2?) would advance if forced (R2 to home, because of force, correct?).

Is this just an OBR error? If so, how should the rule read (or at least its interpretation...)

The OBR obstruction rule can be debated "until the cows come home" because of those 2 little words under Type B IF ANY

Example: R1 one out

Ground ball to F6 to start the 6-4-3 DP. BEFORE F6 fields the ball, R1 is obstructed by F3, F6 flips to F4 and on to F3 to complete the DP.

In addition, R1 was out by a Mile at second base

OBR Ruling: - DP stands because absent the OBS, R1 would have been out anyway. Some will say Hey wait a minute we have Type "A" here but at the time R1 was obstructed there was no play on him so in the example above it is Type 'B" but as mentioned one could argue the "other way" since we are 'splitting hairs" as to when R1 was obstructed.

The problem with the OBR obstruction ruling is that Obstruction in some cases can be "waved off" and not penalized because of the wording under TYPE "B" When we rule interference we do not "wait and see", we simply enforce.

IMO, the NCAA and FED ruling are consistent with other rule infractions meaning in an NCAA or FED game the obstructed runner is going to get a minimum of a one base award - PERIOD. Also, wait until playing action is over before enforcing. No need to worry about should TIME be called immediatly or is the ball delayed dead and which base (If any) do I ptotect the runner to. In FED / NCAA OBS is delayed dead and the obstructed runner is going to get at a minimum a one base award.

As for microphones on umpires. I am all for it. Obviously they do not need to explain every infraction but the ones in which the crew huddles or there is a strange call that is made similar to the "tuck" rule in football.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Example: R1 one out

Ground ball to F6 to start the 6-4-3 DP. BEFORE F6 fields the ball, R1 is obstructed by F3, F6 flips to F4 and on to F3 to complete the DP.

In addition, R1 was out by a Mile at second base

OBR Ruling: - DP stands because absent the OBS, R1 would have been out anyway. Some will say Hey wait a minute we have Type "A" here but at the time R1 was obstructed there was no play on him so in the example above it is Type 'B" but as mentioned one could argue the "other way" since we are 'splitting hairs" as to when R1 was obstructed.

No way. By your logic, if I'm F3 I will GRAB R1 and prevent him from running. Hey, he'd be out anyway, right? And to be sure, I'll tell F2 to grab BR, since he's not being played on either.

R1 is forced to 2B. Why wouldn't a play at 2B be on him? Who are they playing on at 2B if not R1? This is type A: dead ball, award R1 2B, award BR 1B

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The OBR obstruction rule can be debated "until the cows come home" because of those 2 little words under Type B IF ANY

Example: R1 one out

Ground ball to F6 to start the 6-4-3 DP. BEFORE F6 fields the ball, R1 is obstructed by F3, F6 flips to F4 and on to F3 to complete the DP.

In addition, R1 was out by a Mile at second base

OBR Ruling: - DP stands because absent the OBS, R1 would have been out anyway. Some will say Hey wait a minute we have Type "A" here but at the time R1 was obstructed there was no play on him so in the example above it is Type 'B" but as mentioned one could argue the "other way" since we are 'splitting hairs" as to when R1 was obstructed.

The problem with the OBR obstruction ruling is that Obstruction in some cases can be "waved off" and not penalized because of the wording under TYPE "B" When we rule interference we do not "wait and see", we simply enforce.

I think, Pete, that the OBR obstruction rule gets muddy because so many umpires focus too much on the words, "if any," and not enough on the words, "nullify the act of obstruction."

In your double play situation, in what way was the act of obstruction on the BR nullified? The ruling you used as an example did nothing to nullify the act of obstruction, and there were no subsequent events that would cause you to consider the act of obstruction nullified -- so how on Earth has that ruling at all followed the language of the rule? In order to come to the ruling you used as an example one would have to ignore any references to nullifying the act of obstruction and read only, "in his judgment," and, "if any."

Furthermore, we understand from case plays, interpretations, and examples exactly what, "if any," means and when we can use, "judgment." Since Type B obstruction allows play to continue, the obstructed runner could score. There would be nothing to do in order to, "nullify the act of obstruction." The runner can also reach -- on his own -- the base he'd be awarded, and then subsequent events during continuous action could allow him to advance at his own peril beyond that base -- thus the act of obstruction is nullified. There isn't a single authoritative case play example anywhere on this planet that is even remotely similar to the ruling you posted.

In all examples of delayed dead balls in the OBR, the design is solely to avoid penalizing the offense for an illegal act by the defense. It is to give the offense an opportunity to advance beyond those bases they would have been awarded for the illegal act. One would have to completely ignore that fact in order to look at the obstruction rule the way you have in your post.

So, yes, you can make the arguments you have made about the obstruction rule, but you'd be showing very little understanding of the language of the rule and the principles behind it, and you'd be very wrong.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

I think you are confusing "in the act of fielding" with "making a play".

In Pete Booth's example with the fielder grabbing the R1 on his way to 2B, he is correct that this is Type B - some fielder must be in possession of the ball, or having been in possession, have released a throw in order for "a play" to be in progress. Since no fielder had yet gained possession, no play was being made on the obstructed runner at the time he was obstructed.

The BR on his way to 1B is a different case, explicitly stated in the rule, which dictates a Type A Obs call whether a play is being made on him or not.

JM

[UMP25]

Back to the subject at hand...

I was discussing this with my colleague Mr. Jenkins before our game Tuesday evening. As much as MLB umpires are rather testy when it comes to stuff like instant replay, Questec, and similar technological wonders--cough, cough--if I were an MLB umpire, I would welcome a microphone on an umpire, but here's how IMHO it can be done professionally:

Give the microphone to the crew chief only, like the NFL does to its Referee. When there's an unusual ruling or similar, like there was in Sunday's White Sox game, he can turn it on, explain the ruling, and that's that.

The CC would do this only for rulings and not for disputed judgment calls or calls essentially based on judgment. For example, he wouldn't go to the mike to explain that after discussion, the "foul" ball that went around the foul pole was determined to be a home run and not foul, or that after discussion, F3 pulled his foot off the bag, etc. Such situations would not result in the mike being used.

As I told Bob, I'd bet that when all is said and done, if the CC were to use a mike in such limited circumstances, the number of times during the entire MLB season would probably be minimal. I don't think that the umpires or MLB would find this intrusive or bothersome at all, and it would go far to clarify things, especially in this mass audience, television-driven age in which we live.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Back to the subject at hand...

I was discussing this with my colleague Mr. Jenkins before our game Tuesday evening. As much as MLB umpires are rather testy when it comes to stuff like instant replay, Questec, and similar technological wonders--cough, cough--if I were an MLB umpire, I would welcome a microphone on an umpire, but here's how IMHO it can be done professionally:

Give the microphone to the crew chief only, like the NFL does to its Referee. When there's an unusual ruling or similar, like there was in Sunday's White Sox game, he can turn it on, explain the ruling, and that's that.

The CC would do this only for rulings and not for disputed judgment calls or calls essentially based on judgment. For example, he wouldn't go to the mike to explain that after discussion, the "foul" ball that went around the foul pole was determined to be a home run and not foul, or that after discussion, F3 pulled his foot off the bag, etc. Such situations would not result in the mike being used.

As I told Bob, I'd bet that when all is said and done, if the CC were to use a mike in such limited circumstances, the number of times during the entire MLB season would probably be minimal. I don't think that the umpires or MLB would find this intrusive or bothersome at all, and it would go far to clarify things, especially in this mass audience, television-driven age in which we live.

Here, here !

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your case is not apposite. I said that a runner cannot be obstructed while STANDING on a base. In your case, the runner is obstructed as he runs past a base, perhaps WHILE (momentarily) ON the base. Not the same.

It is impossible to "impede the progress" of someone who is standing still.

Obstruction has two intonations, 1) the obvious physical act and 2) the psychological act. In the second, the OBS still exists.

Example: R on 2B, a play is in progress in RF, he's standing on the bag, looking at the play. He mentally commits to attempt 3B but as he turns his head, F6 is standing directly in his path.

DEF needs to get out of the obvious basepath, or running line, and all is well. If they don't OBS should be considered.