Obstruction

[Raymond]

dailypress.com - Inside the PD

...With the score tied 2-2, Menchville had runners at first and second with one out. As Hunter Lewis dug in at the plate, Woodside’s Christian Burton charged from first base yelling “bunt” — even though Lewis had not squared to bunt.

Mays never delivered a pitch, but the home plate umpire called obstruction on Burton and awarded Lewis first base.
...

[mbyron]

Wow. Impressive.

[jdmara]

hhmmm...I don't know if I would have ever came up with that outcome. I don't know about this one but I'm sure as heck not going to criticize without seeing what exactly happened

-Josh

[Rich Ives]

How can you obstruct the batter if no pitch is delivered?

[jicecone]

I am holding off until I get home and look at my books. Something seems very far-fetched here, OOO and just not correct.

[BigTex]

"Compton cited Rule 2, Section 22, Article 1, which states: “Obstruction is an act, intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal, by a fielder … that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.” Compton said “runner” is interchangable with “batter” in this context."

If you use that logic, would a curve ball be obstruction?

[dash_riprock]

From the same article:

Woodside coach Kevin Hare strongly disagreed with the call. But Gerald Compton, commissioner of the Peninsula Baseball Umpires Association, said the ump got it right.

“That was an option he had available to him at the time,” Compton said. “You can opine whether it was good or bad, but it was within the realm of the options he had.”

Compton cited Rule 2, Section 22, Article 1, which states: “Obstruction is an act, intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal, by a fielder … that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.” Compton said “runner” is interchangable with “batter” in this context.

I wonder what else is interchangeable in FED rules.

[johnnyg08]

I don't think that OBS is the right call here...how did it affect the play?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

From the same article:

Compton cited Rule 2, Section 22, Article 1, which states: “Obstruction is an act, intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal, by a fielder … that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.” Compton said “runner” is interchangable with “batter” in this context.

I wonder what else is interchangeable in FED rules.

Exactly. You've got the batter, the batter-runner, and the runner. The batter-runner is a runner, but the batter is not, and thus cannot be obstructed.

If there's anything more idiotic than the original call, it's this attempt to justify an idiotic call.

And somebody can't spell 'interchangeable'.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

dailypress.com - Inside the PD

...With the score tied 2-2, Menchville had runners at first and second with one out. As Hunter Lewis dug in at the plate, Woodside’s Christian Burton charged from first base yelling “bunt” — even though Lewis had not squared to bunt.

Mays never delivered a pitch, but the home plate umpire called obstruction on Burton and awarded Lewis first base.
...

This, my friends, is a case of very bad officiating.

[David B]

Originally Posted by umpjong

This, my friends, is a case of very bad officiating.

Agreed, obviously someone doesn't understand the game of baseball.

This play happens all the time even the MLB's. Trick plays are part of the game.

What would the umpires do with the "miami play" or the "skunk in the outfield" ?

Thanks
David

[Fittske]

I disagree with the call totally. This is not the intent of the "verbal" OBS. That portion of the rule could be used for examples like: infielder tells the runner on a stolen base attempt "Hey that was a foul ball" runner trots back to 1st and they tag him out. If I hear it, that’s verbal OBS. You cannot award a batter a base without at a minimum a pitched ball. If anything the Plate umpire should have called time, warned the fielder and coach, then ejected on the next offense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Fittske

If anything the Plate umpire should have called time, warned the fielder and coach, then ejected on the next offense.

Warned them for what?

[Fittske]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Warned them for what?

For the "obvious" Verbal distraction. I say "obvious" only assuming that the verbal distraction was enough to cause an issue/distraction. In the case of the original situation it had to be enough of an issue for the plate umpire to make a call of OBS (although the wrong call)

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Fittske

For the "obvious" Verbal distraction. I say "obvious" only assuming that the verbal distraction was enough to cause an issue/distraction. In the case of the original situation it had to be enough of an issue for the plate umpire to make a call of OBS (although the wrong call)

Who (or what) was obstructed?