The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Eddings' Obstruction Call (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/47730-eddings-obstruction-call.html)

Steven Tyler Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:35pm

Eddings' Obstruction Call
 
Did anybody see the obstruction call in the White Sox/Rays game on TBS today? It looked for certain that A J Piersynski caused the contact, however slight, by throwing his left arm into Willy Aybar. If someone could post a link, it would be most helpful.

What is it with Eddings and his love affair with the White Sox?.............:D

That's the third call he's made that's had controvery in the last three years that have heavily benefited the Sox.

1. Uncaught third strike.
2. Called umpire interference on himself when he collided with Jermaine Dye running the bases.
3. Obstruction call on Rays

umpduck11 Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:37pm

A.J. gave an Academy Award-worthy acting job. I was surprised when the obstruction was called.

jwwashburn Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:44pm

Actually it was interference-mlb.com
 
Interference call tough to swallow

I could not even bring myself to read the quote from Ozzie...heart attcks run in my family.

Joe In Missouri

jwwashburn Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50pm

Yep, it was interference alllllright. Your MLB.com reporter Mike Yam says so.

Watch the RECAP You can skip ahead to about 1.50

Joe In Missouri

yawetag Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:41pm

It doesn't look like obstruction (or interference, for that matter) at all. A.J. seemed to have slipped the same time Aybar passed him. If there was any contact, it was AJ's elbow hitting Aybar.

I wouldn't have called it myself.

UMP25 Mon Aug 25, 2008 06:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpduck11
A.J. gave an Academy Award-worthy acting job. I was surprised when the obstruction was called.

As was I. I was at the game, seated in section 340, which was directly above and in line w/ the rundown. As soon as I saw AJ stick his left arm out to contact the fielder, I turned to my dad and said, "AJ's trying to get an obstruction call!" Sure enough, Eddings calls it. What made me think Eddings blew the call was that he never called "time" and made the award. He kind of looked unsure of himself, or maybe even like he got deked by AJ, which, of course, would NEVER happen, right? ;) Considering it's "Type A" obstruction, the ball should have been killed right away and the award made. Instead, Eddings only pointed to AJ when it occurred.

The controversy is all the rage around town now, and yesterday evening, I was on WSCR-AM The Score explaining obstruction and the context of the play.

chuckfan1 Mon Aug 25, 2008 06:38am

Whats interesting to me, after watching the play, is there are several Rays all over Eddings, and it took what seemed quite a while for reinforcements to arrive,,leaving him to fend for himself.

David B Mon Aug 25, 2008 07:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawetag
It doesn't look like obstruction (or interference, for that matter) at all. A.J. seemed to have slipped the same time Aybar passed him. If there was any contact, it was AJ's elbow hitting Aybar.

I wouldn't have called it myself.

Exactly what you're taught, when in a rundown you want to try and run into or make contact with the fielder who has just thrown the ball and is in your way.

Good job of baseball by the runner. Umpire had to make the call based on obstruction. The replay I saw on ESPN didn't show everything, but the fielder was in his way so obstruction.

The manager said he did it intentionally, "DUH" that's what he's supposed to do.

Thansk
David

bob jenkins Mon Aug 25, 2008 07:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B
Exactly what you're taught, when in a rundown you want to try and run into or make contact with the fielder who has just thrown the ball and is in your way.

Good job of baseball by the runner. Umpire had to make the call based on obstruction. The replay I saw on ESPN didn't show everything, but the fielder was in his way so obstruction.

The manager said he did it intentionally, "DUH" that's what he's supposed to do.

Thansk
David

Yes -- good job to try to get the obstruction call. Still, a bad call based on the replays I saw. It appears to me that Pierzinski (sp?) fell down because there wasn't any contact -- much like falling when someone pulls the chair out from under you.

I can see how U2 might miss it (being "actively" involved in the run-down), but I would think U3 would have a good view of the play / actions of Pierzinski and the Rays' fielder and given some input (and maybe he did, but the input wasn't accepted).

mrm21711 Mon Aug 25, 2008 08:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Yes -- good job to try to get the obstruction call. Still, a bad call based on the replays I saw. It appears to me that Pierzinski (sp?) fell down because there wasn't any contact -- much like falling when someone pulls the chair out from under you.

I can see how U2 might miss it (being "actively" involved in the run-down), but I would think U3 would have a good view of the play / actions of Pierzinski and the Rays' fielder and given some input (and maybe he did, but the input wasn't accepted).

Any reason Ted Barrett, the #2 on the crew, commented to the media instead of DeMuth the crew chief?

UMP25 Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:26pm

Because Dana gave him the OK to do so. Ted's considered a bit more explanatory and a tad better speaker than Dana. ;)

yawetag Mon Aug 25, 2008 09:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I can see how U2 might miss it (being "actively" involved in the run-down)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't U2 watch the runner through a run-down? After all, the object at that point is for defense to tag him.

If so, you would think U2 would have seen the whole play and ruled it correctly.

David B Mon Aug 25, 2008 09:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawetag
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't U2 watch the runner through a run-down? After all, the object at that point is for defense to tag him.

If so, you would think U2 would have seen the whole play and ruled it correctly.

I still think that he saw contact, he made the ruling. Once he called it, no one objected so it was too late to go back and change it. Probably on second thought, he would have called it differently.

But then, most of us have been there before also.

Thanks
David

UMP25 Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:02pm

No one objected? Where were you when the Tampa fielder and their manager were screaming at Eddings? Believe me, there was plenty of objecting.

Nigel Tufnel Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:21am

pride swallowed
 
Bad angle...bad call...

Anyways, if this was soccer, we would call that a flop...

That's a bs move on piersflopper

David B Tue Aug 26, 2008 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMP25
No one objected? Where were you when the Tampa fielder and their manager were screaming at Eddings? Believe me, there was plenty of objecting.

That's not objecting, that's just coaches doing their job. We ignore coaches, we eject players.;) I was talking about from his other umpires.

Thanks
David

UMP25 Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

Good job of baseball by the runner. Umpire had to make the call based on obstruction. The replay I saw on ESPN didn't show everything, but the fielder was in his way so obstruction.

The manager said he did it intentionally, "DUH" that's what he's supposed to do.

Thansk
David

Well, you might want to change your tune. Both Eddings and MLB admitted the call was incorrect:

Quote:


MLB official reveals obstruction call incorrect
By Mark Gonzales, 9:35 p.m.

BOSTON -- It turns out Tampa Bay had a legitimate gripe about Sunday's obstruction call against third baseman Willy Aybar that helped the the White Sox to a 5-4 victory.

Mike Port, Major League Baseball's vice president of umpiring, Thursday told the St. Petersburg Times that it was "a missed call" that led to the Sox's A.J. Pierzynski reaching third base and eventually scoring the winning run.

Port said umpire Doug Eddings believed he saw Pierzynski "impeded more than he was" by Aybar, who was chasing Pierzynski in a rundown.

"Looking back at that occurrence, for the first and last time, it was a missed call," Port said told the Times. "And it was not because Doug Eddings, an umpire with 10 years experience, and 10 before that in the minor leagues, didn't know the application of the rule, but just that in the moment in applying the rule, he saw something he thought was more than it turned out to be."

Eddings was "the first to admit" he missed the call and told MLB officials after reviewing replays, Port told the Times.


David B Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMP25
Well, you might want to change your tune. Both Eddings and MLB admitted the call was incorrect:

Not really, I didn't say the call was correct, but just that in real time I can see how he made the call.

IMO he should have asked his partner if he saw anything differently, and he might have, but they didn't offer any help so he had to go with what he saw.

Still, that was a great piece of baserunning, and he "flopped" as Bob said and got the call.

Hey, happens in the NBA all the time.

In retrospect, there are many calls that could be changed if we could do them over again.

But, I am glad to hear that MLB admitted the call was wrong, that helps us umpires to know how to handle that type of call if it happens again.

Do you have a link to the story from MLB perspective I would like to read the reason for his change of heart, since this play does happen quite a bit.

Was it because the BR intentionally stuck his arm out or what?

Just curious.

Thanks
David

UMP25 Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:15am

FYI, Eddings did go to his partners for help to see what they saw on the play. The crew huddled for about a minute or so and let the call stand.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1