Doug Eddings calls "Obstruction" on himself; protects runner
 

In the things you've never seen before:

In tonight's Tigers @ White Sox game, Jermaine Dye's on first base when the batter hits a slow roller to short. F6 runs up and gloves the ball on the edge of the infield grass. Dye rounds second base widely, and Eddings, who was in the "C" position, realizes he's going to be in the line of the throw from F6 to F4 to try and nail Dye. So, Eddings backs up, running onto the infield dirt, but smashes into Dye, who was trying to go back to second, and they both fall to the ground as F4, to whom F6 had thrown the ball, tags Dye. Eddings immediately calls "Time" and points Dye to second base, protecting him back to the bag. Dye was an easy out, too, since he was several feet off the bag.

Interesting. I've never heard of this type of interpretation under OBR before.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

How is this not an out? This is umpiring 101 here kids, and if a guy blew this on a televised Little League game you would be roasting him/her.

p.s. I thought Eddings was supposed to be on vacation. :eek:

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.

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.

Apparently he is. Missed that?:p

Wonder why? Uh, because it's stupid to think so? This isn't LL where some kid crys and Mommy wants to give you a tongue wagging in the parking lot.

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

I thought we were (generally) "roasting" Eddings here. Certainly I don't see much serious agreement with what he did.

That said, the difference between Eddings (and any other MLB umpire) and the average LL umpire is that Eddings deserves somewhat of a benefit of the doubt. Maybe such a play is covered in some memo to which we have no access.

That said, as presented and based on the rules and interps I've read, I think he blew both the mechanics and the call. It will be interesting to see if there's some interp to the contrary published next spring (it won't be the first time some "wrong" call in MLB is either proven or changed to be "right")