Mlb fpsr?!?!

[mbyron]

My sense over the past couple years is that MLB is trying to clean up the action around 2nd base. Not every umpire seems to be on board with this project, which would explain why we see some inconsistency of enforcement.

I can't see that MLBUM 6.3 applies to this play, as it concerns illegal slides. Victorino did not slide.

Moreover, the Brewers completed the double play anyway, which suggests that the runner didn't hinder the fielder.

Still, if you're going to get INT, you've got to call it immediately -- not wait for the outcome of the play -- which the umpire did. Interesting call.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I can't see that MLBUM 6.3 applies to this play, as it concerns illegal slides. Victorino did not slide.

slide or roll block

Doesn't have to be a slide - thats why it's "or"


If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

Fits the bill.

Interference.

[tballump]

tjones1 and SanDiegoSteve

Started surfing the net and found this for both of you.

The article with the term "obstruction" was written by staff reporter Todd Zolecki. This may not be the article you were referring to though. Go to http://www.philly.com/philly/sports

Scroll down to the writer Todd Zolecki's picture on the left. Click on "Guess theres no sweep. The first part that is underlined in the article "The Phillies lost last night.... should be clicked on---then go to the end of the article, "Howard scored, but wait, umpires ruled obstruction on Shane Victorino".

I do not know if this was on a back page or the front page of the Inquirer or if Todd also wrote another article on another page but changed the wording or something. Anyway tjones1 did see a Philly reporter use the word obstruction. Hope this helps.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

slide or roll block

Doesn't have to be a slide - thats why it's "or"


If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

Fits the bill.

Interference.

A roll block is one kind of illegal slide, and involves a player touching the ground with something other than the soles of his shoes. Whether it was interference or not, it was clearly not a roll block.

Whether it was interference or not, MLBUM 6.3 provides no guidance on this play.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

A roll block is one kind of illegal slide, and involves a player touching the ground with something other than the soles of his shoes. Whether it was interference or not, it was clearly not a roll block.

Whether it was interference or not, MLBUM 6.3 provides no guidance on this play.

I'm not making this stuff up.

Re-read the definition in the interp:

If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

Whether you like it or not, the move met the criteria.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I'm not making this stuff up.

Re-read the definition in the interp:

If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

Whether you like it or not, the move met the criteria.

The definition suggests that the player makes contact with the ground after contacting the fielder. That does not happen when a player merely runs into a fielder.

You can't have a roll block without a roll.

Whether you like it or not, the move fails to meet the criteria.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The definition suggests that the player makes contact with the ground after contacting the fielder. That does not happen when a player merely runs into a fielder.

You can't have a roll block without a roll.

Whether you like it or not, the move fails to meet the criteria.

The first two examples in 6.3 don't meet that (literal) criteria, yet are still considered interference. The runner in those also never slides or contacts the ground.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It was interference. Vittorino had no intention of gaining second base, only in contacting the fielder.

It was called immediately, not later.

The umpires convened to make sure that they were ruling properly in returning both runners.

They got the call right.

The End.