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")

www.firedougeddings.com ;)

Somebody bought a domain name just for that??

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.

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...

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.

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.

I would guess someone was really upset with his non-strike three call a few years ago in the playoff. ;)

What inning did this play happen in?

D-man, I don't remember exactly. I think somewhere near the middle of the game.

Thanks 25,

Bottom of 4th.

MLB.com must be doing a promotion for their MLB TV package. Click on a highlight. In the upper right area of the highlight screen, click to show box score. Once the box score is up, you can click on any half inning to show that inning.

I hope I didn't subscribe by accident, not that I wouldn't love to have it.

D

I'd respond better if I had any idea what it is you're trying to say. I don't see the parallel between LL kids crying, their Mommies wagging their tongues, and a fixable situation in MLB due to improper mechanics. I'm pretty dense though, so you'll have to explain it to me....................


Tim.

Private in what sense? How are these memorandums tied to the OBR for purposes of authority?

Private in the sense that they're only sent to MLB umpires (and maybe the teams).

They don't affect OBR until they become "public" (e.g., published in OBR or NAPBL) or until the play happens often enough for the public to draw a conclusion.

In the current play, for example, we don't know if Eddings made a mistak, or follwoed direction. If the play happens a few more times, and each time the umpire disallows the out and returns the runner, then that will be seen as the "accepted practice" and will affect how the game is called at the amateur level.

I hope none of you guys are serious about a secret memo that would allow a "never mind" on an umpire FUBAR.