Microphones for umpires?
 

Watching today's (Sunday's) Cubs-White Sox game brought a question to mind. I'll let others debate whether or not the umps got the ruling right on the obstruction play as I have no idea. But in a situation like that, especially on the major league level, I wish the crew chief would have a microphone to explain the ruling. Either over the PA system like the NFL refs do or just to the press box so the broadcast guys would know.

What are your thoughts, positive and negative?

Don't think the umpires need another duty.

Rich Garcia was in the broadcast booth today and he explained it to them and then they reported it. The network should pay for an additional umpire and place him in the booth.

I saw one yesterday in the CWS, classic timing play, bases loaded with a fly ball to outfield with 1 out. Runner on 1b was doubled up getting back to 1b, but not before runner on 3b tagged and scored. You wouldn't believe how much time the announcers spent talking about it, about how they had never seen that and it did not seem right, and they really should change that rule if that is the way it really is, yadayada...

My Only question is
 

WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO MAKE THE CALL????????????????

That was as obvious as the nose on the faces of anyone in the crowd.

Occasional reader; it was this play that made me decide to register and post.

As my screname indicates, I am just a Fan. But, I have always made it a point to try and understand the rules (partially by occasionally reading these boards).

It appears to me that they ruled type A obstruction since they declared the ball dead. I have always understood that type A obstruction is called only when at the time of the obstruction, a play is being directly made on a runner (such as a rundown). At the time of the obstruction in this play, the ball was either in the outfield or in the air from the outfield to the infield. So, how is this type A obstruction when at the time of the obstruction, no play was being directly made on the runner?

And, second, type A obstruction per MLB rules requires a minimum of a one base award. It appeared to me that the obstructed runner was standing on second base when he was obstructed. So, why is he not awarded third (and if you award him third, what do you do with the lead runner who was caught in the rundown between 3B and home)?

I sure wouldn't put my knowledge of the rules up against Joe West, so I'm sure he got this right. But, these were just a few things that didn't seem right based on my knowledge of the rules.

Thanks in advance.

I only caught this play on the replay, but Im verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interested to hear some AOs here on the topic. I have my opinions but would like to hear what others might say...perhaps I missed an important element.

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.

You can't obstruct a runner standing on a base. I did not see this play, so I have no idea what happened, but your description can't be quite right.

If he's obstructed with the ball on the way and the umpires call type a, they'll give him the base that he was going to (or his advance base if he's going back). That's a 1 base award from the last base he legally touched.

Any runner forced to advance by the award would do so.

Anyone know the inning? I'll make a video.

Top 8th inning.

8th inning

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?

Yeah, I'm looking at it now. I'm trying to figure out the best part to record because it was one very long incident.

Looks like we crossed in cyberspace! :)

Okay here's the video. It's the best I could do. Watch closely for 3BU Ed Hickox calling the obstruction on the SS at 2nd base:

http://menotomyjournal.com/mlbvids/obstruction.wmv

Apparently the umpires screwed the pooch when they failed to stop play once R2 was put out at second base. They merely fixed their mistake by putting runners back to where they would've been had they properly stopped play when the obstructed runner was put out.

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.

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

You have a point there.

Why not? A good umpire should have nothing to fear from this introspection.

Why Not?
 

There are several reasons why not:

1. It is hard to keep up with conversations when every other (%(&$($($^(*&% &^&%(&^$#@@&% word is $#@!^@&$% so you can't @$@^$&***$ use it on @#$@%Y%$ TV. And why should people like me have to listen to that @#@^^% on my $@@&&#(%*%*&^()) TV. And hearing some @@^$$&# player or &)(*^^&^) Manager talking about the *(^%&$^##& game needs to stay as )&^$^#$ private as (*&^(%*#$#*& possible.

2. In my games, there are conversations between me and players or even coaches that need to stay private, I would have to think that MLB games have tons of that stuff that should never get on the air, and will inflame things on the field if they do.

3. If fans want an idea of what PU/F2 talk is about, tell them to rent Bull Durham. other than that, let them enjoy what they see, not what they don't need to hear. Let them hear the educated broadcast team instead, esp. such baseball heavyweights as McCarver.

The OP isn't (I don't think) suggesting that all conversations be broadcast to the crowd. Rather, he's suggesting that the result of "unusual" plays be explained -- much as the R in football doesn't broadcast all conversations, but explains penalties. Here, either Bucknor or West could have said, "R1 was obstructed at second. When a play was made on him, the ball became dead. Nothing after that is allowed to stand. All runners are placed at the base occupied when the ball became dead."

That is exactly what I was suggesting, Bob. Leave the mic off at all times until something like that comes up and needs explaining. Granted, managers will then want nitpicky stuff explained to the crowd. But that would be up to the umpire.

from ChicagoSports:

Call of the wild (play): Brutal
Only Cubs' Hughes nails crazy sequence

An obstruction of justice? Actually, no

June 25, 2007


Moments after the Cubs' baserunning cirque de soleil ended Sunday and the umpires ruled everyone safe, White Sox radio play-by-play man Ed Farmer said: "Whoever makes this call, it's the wrong call. This is brutal."

Sox TV voice Hawk Harrelson called it "B.S." three times before proclaiming: "I'll guarantee you, this will be one protest that's upheld."


Neither Harrelson nor partner Darrin Jackson had any idea why the umpires huddled after the play.

If only someone on the telecast had been listening to Cubs radio play-by-play man Pat Hughes, who immediately identified the cause of the controversy.

"There's going to be interference called on the shortstop, [Juan] Uribe," Hughes said. "The runner from first was [Angel] Pagan. He smacked into the shortstop as he tried to round second base. And now the umpires will get together and sort it all out."

Farmer's analyst, Chris Singleton, also noticed the interference.

"Pagan and Uribe bumped pretty hard," he said. "That threw Pagan off."

But Farmer either wasn't listening to Singleton or didn't think the interference would be a factor in the call.

"I guarantee this: If [umpire] Joe West contradicts the play that happened, [Ozzie] Guillen's going to be tossed," Farmer said. "There should be two outs and [Mark] DeRosa at second."

Then a revved-up Farmer fired this off: "The blood in Ozzie Guillen's veins has started to heat up. If this play is reversed, he will come out of [the dugout] like there's a Chrysler engine attached to his backside."

But Guillen didn't even seem as fired up as Harrelson and Jackson.

Jackson: "It's not that confusing to me. They get [Felix] Pie and that's all there is to it. Pagan was called out. He's just a gone goose, as is Pie. I don't know why [Pagan] is even on the field. He was called out. It's really a straightforward play. … This could be the worst call I've ever seen."

Harrelson thought the umpires might call a triple play. After the umpires did just the opposite, Harrelson said: "I've never seen anything like that in my whole career, as a player coming up in Little League to D-ball to C-ball to A-ball to Triple A to the big leagues.

"This is absolute B.S. There should be two out and a man on second. And they've got the bases loaded and no out. Dadgum right this game's going to be played under protest."

After a replay showed Uribe's collision with Pagan, Harrelson said: "Anytime I've ever seen an obstruction play, they call a dead ball. A dead ball means that everything stops right there."

But in this case, everything was just getting started.

Men, My point is still valid
 

Since NFL games do not allow protests, and crews have known to make mistakes in games on rule and judgement call, it is still a bad idea. How do you explain Type A obstruction to a crowd who thinks they are getting hosed? Or a manager who will use an explaination to whip up the home crowd by trying to show they are wrong.

IMO it's a bad idea all the way around.

Potential to throw an entire crew under the bus.
Bad idea IMO.

The umpires screwed up. They should've stopped play when R1 was in the rundown between 2nd and 3rd. At that time, R2 was on 3rd and the BR legally occupied first. So they corrected their mistake and put the runners back to where they were when R1 was tagged.

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.

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.

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."

(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.

R1 never got in a rundown between second and third. The throw from the outfield went to the fielder located right next to the first base bag. The fielder after catching the throw from the outfield on one hop, looked up and saw R1 trying to scramble back to second base. R1 fired to the middle infielder at second, and the tag was applied as R1 was diving head first back into second. R1 was then called out.

IMO, at the moment of the tag, U2 should have called "time".

Sds
 

SDS,

Sorry about the weekend.

--Red Sox fan.

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?

It's ok with me. I like the Red Sox. They are my favorite AL East team. I hate the Yankees.

Besides, we lost 2-1, then waxed your butts in game 2, then lost in a good pitching matchup yesterday. It wasn't like the Padres rolled over for the Sox, they were all good games.

Very true. I just like to tease. With the Sox you know you have to brag during the FIRST half of the season...because you know what's coming during the second half!

First question: Because J/R considers a rundown as being a "play"...the umpire shall kill the ball immediately upon the commencement of the rundown in your hypo.

Second question: Not necessarily. If the first fielder caught the ball and saw R1 hung-up between the bases, and R1 just stands there between the bases waiting to see what the fielder does, and the fielder (instead of throwing to another fielder) starts running at R1...then I'd call "time" and award appropriately.

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.

Because the play was really over before the BR was tagged out. He was tagged after the play on R1, which made everything after that moot. Or mute if your so inclined.:)

Getting back to the question of microphones, in Japan the plate umpire has access to a microphone which is behind a small door in the backstop. He can make comments to the crowd and television/radio audiences. It is used sparingly--my sister-in-law is a Tokyo Giants fan, and she says it comes out once or twice per season.

I saw the microphone once while I was in Japan. It was occaisioned by an apparent error by the crew in handling a ground rules situation. Parks in Japan are all very similar, with similar ground rules, and the fans tend to know them. The announcement was simply that due to repairs, the usual ground rules were changed for that week's games. I thnk this is a fine use of a microphone-- the umpire is clarifying something that even very knowledgeable fans could not have known.

Since the 'phone is available all the time and is seldom used, I think it is a fair inference that Japanese baseball does not favor routine use.

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.

That was my fault. So much happened during that play that my memory invented a rundown with R1.

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...)

You're looking at 7.06(a). You need to look at 7.06(b).

Tim.

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. If R1 had somehow advanced to 3rd base then he would no longer have been protected.

2) You're looking at 7.06(a), or Type A obstruction. You need to look at 7.06(B) -- Type B obstruction:

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Southsider, huh?:)

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.

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.

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.

Ahhh, a George Gordon reference.

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

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.

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).

Walk me through this. R2 posseses 3B, R1 2B. So to begin R1 is protected to 3B
Why does this make a difference or doea it?
I'll assume this is irreleavnt.
Also irrelevant as to why he retreated and this play.
Is there not a conflict between where you can be protected since 3B is occupied? This is how I interp what you are saying.
If R1 is obstructed, then why reverse the protection?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 ! :D

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.

I believe that the "R on 2B" in this situation would be wise to "prove" the obstruction by leaving the base and creating contact with F6, in order to get this call. If he simply stays at 2B, it would be a tough call for the BU to adjudge that obstruction has occurred.

Originally Posted by fitump56
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.

Where's a video when you need one? :D Can't disagree but that is why they don't pay me the Big Bucks.

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.

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.

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

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.