Microphones for umpires?

[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

[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 !

[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.