Doug Eddings calls "Obstruction" on himself; protects runner

[bossman72]

that's very odd. that should be an out by rule.... hmmmm

[johnSandlin]

This explains why Jim Leyland was not around to see the end of the game. Eddings ran him out also.

[UMP25]

Except that Leyland was ejected in the bottom of the 9th on a different play. Eddings appeared to botch that call, too.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bossman72

that's very odd. that should be an out by rule.... hmmmm

One would think. I don't have the MLBUM in front of me right now, so I can't even check if something like this is even covered.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by UMP25

One would think. I don't have the MLBUM in front of me right now, so I can't even check if something like this is even covered.

I just spent some time parusing my copy and didn't see anything there to cover this. There are times, however, when an umpire's use of poor mechanics causes a runner to be put out unjustly should be "fixed." They're not mentioned in the MLBUM though.


Tim.

[mbyron]

I don't think you should have an out here: Eddings's hard work gave the defense an advantage not intended by the rules. Fix it and move on.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't think you should have an out here: Eddings's hard work...............

Hard work? Hard as a bone, oh, that's what you mean. My bad.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I just spent some time parusing my copy and didn't see anything there to cover this. There are times, however, when an umpire's use of poor mechanics causes a runner to be put out unjustly should be "fixed." They're not mentioned in the MLBUM though.


Tim.

So you're using 9.01C for your ruling in this case?

There are two times when an umpire kills the ball when it involves him.

He is hit with a batted ball and he interferes with a throw.

Colliding with a base runner is not one.

Eddings blew the call.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So you're using 9.01C for your ruling in this case?

There are two times when an umpire kills the ball when it involves him.

He is hit with a batted ball and he interferes with a throw.

Colliding with a base runner is not one.

Eddings blew the call.

You obviously missed or ignored the fact that I drew no conclusion upon the Eddings ruling. I said there are times when an umpire's incorrect use of mechanics, putting a runner in jeapordy, can be fixed. Perhaps this is one of them, or perhaps it isn't. I'll write Rick Roder and see what he has to say.


Tim.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

You obviously missed or ignored the fact that I drew no conclusion upon the Eddings ruling. I said there are times when an umpire's incorrect use of mechanics, putting a runner in jeapordy, can be fixed. Perhaps this is one of them, or perhaps it isn't. I'll write Rick Roder and see what he has to say.


Tim.

I agree with Steven Tyler. The only way this situation can be fixed is if the umpire doesn't collide with the baserunner in the first place. And you claim I don't have a clue about the rules...

[TussAgee11]

Who knows what memos fly around MLB about this stuff. From the materials we have, it sounds like Eddings messed up (still haven't seen the play). I can't comment on his mechanics during the call, since I haven't seen it.

My point is we don't have all the rule material used in MLB, so we can't really judge what the correct call (or no call) would have been.

In FED, NCAA and OBR at our local diamond, this is an out. But who knows at the MLB level, which can diverge from the OBR path with its private memos.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

You obviously missed or ignored the fact that I drew no conclusion upon the Eddings ruling. I said there are times when an umpire's incorrect use of mechanics, putting a runner in jeapordy, can be fixed. Perhaps this is one of them, or perhaps it isn't. I'll write Rick Roder and see what he has to say.


Tim.

I didn't ignore or miss anything. What rule are you going to enforce? 9.01c has to be the only one unless you have one more specifically spelled out as umpire interference in the rule book.

In essence, you said there are times it can be fixed and times it can't be fixed. So, if the umpire is using proper mechanics, no call shall be made? Is proper mechanics defined in the rule book? I suppose if a runner is in jeopardy of being put out, you would bail him out if he collided with you to kill the play on him. Explain that one to a coach. This is like a true/false question. No grey area for judgment. You've obviously read too much into the question. Things happen on the ballfield that are beyond any one's control. This is such a time.

Plain and simple, Eddings was in the wrong place at the wrong time. To top it off, he made the wrong call.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I just spent some time parusing my copy and didn't see anything there to cover this. There are times, however, when an umpire's use of poor mechanics causes a runner to be put out unjustly should be "fixed." They're not mentioned in the MLBUM though.


Tim.

IF, and this is a big if, his ruling can be supported, justification MIGHT be because of this...

In the MLBUM, there is an example of when an umpire can put a runner improperly tagged out back onto a base. The example cited is R1 on first when the batter walks on ball four but R1 slides into second and is called out by the umpire who apparently didn't realize it was ball four. If R1 begins to leave the field and the defense tags him again because he's walking away from the base, the umpire can call "time" and put him on second because he should have gotten that base in the first place. This is to be distinguished, of course, from an R1 who overslides second on a walk. In that case, he's out when tagged.

So, if Eddings figured the "common sense and fair play" concept was in play here, kind of like the above example, then maybe that's why he ruled as he did. However, I wouldn't agree with it. The umpire is "part of the field" in certain situations, and unless there's a rule specifically covering such a situation--and I don't think 9.01c would--it's essentially a "tough luck" type of play and outcome.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by UMP25

In the MLBUM, there is an example of when an umpire can put a runner improperly tagged out back onto a base. The example cited is R1 on first when the batter walks on ball four but R1 slides into second and is called out by the umpire who apparently didn't realize it was ball four. If R1 begins to leave the field and the defense tags him again because he's walking away from the base, the umpire can call "time" and put him on second because he should have gotten that base in the first place.

Tuff titties. MLB players who haven't learn to never leave the bag ESPECIALLY on a 3 ball count, until the end of the play has been completely decided, deserve what they get. OUT! Hell if I am going to protect them.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Tuff titties. MLB players who haven't learn to never leave the bag ESPECIALLY on a 3 ball count, until the end of the play has been completely decided, deserve what they get. OUT! Hell if I am going to protect them.

Except that the official ruling in this situation is that such a runner is NOT out, your opinion notwithstanding. Remember, R1 didn't "leave" the bag; he never made it there, which was his right due to B1 being awarded first on a base on balls. The MLBUM specifically says the umpire returns him to the base safely.

Half of me can see how this is very similar to Eddings crashing into Dye; therefore Dye should be protected back to second. The other half of me can see how Dye should, indeed, be called out, because as similar as this is to the R1 being improperly called out situation, it still is a bit different rules-wise.

The remaining half of me wonders if there is, as my colleague Mr. Jenkins above mentions, some internal memo to which we're not privy.