Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call
 

Tigers are up to bat. Anderson hits it to the first baseman. It hits off of his leg or glove or something and bounces back toward homeplate. There is a collision right in front of first base after the 1st baseman failed to retrieve the ball.

Anderson(the BR) went flipping into the air and landed HARD on the ground behind first base. This was one of the strangest plays I have ever seen. he then dives back to first as the pitcher threw to the first baseman(or visa versa) The throw clearly beat him.

I think the BU was Laz Diaz. I am still waiting for a safe signal. He never made any signal at all.

I have mostly umpired FED in my life and do not know the MLB rules as well as really old guys from San Diego....

My questions:

1) Was no signal was the correct way to handle this?
2) Would the 1B be guilty of OBS since he blocked the BR's access to 1B
3) What would be the proper way to appeal the miss of 1B in this instance?


Joe in Missouri

If the ball had bounced away from F3, then it was likely obstruction. Since the BR would be awarded first on the obstruction, there's really no way to appeal it (since the obstruction was the *cause* of the miss of first base).

Do the MLB guys have a sign for OBS? Laz did nothing that I could see.

I saw the play in real time last night
 

Being a Tribe fan, and watching their bullpen go off like a Molotov Cocktail every night, I figured I would see another firebomb go off in Detroit. Lo and behold, I did. I was rained out again yesterday (for like the 290th time this season), so I saw the play and the game. Laz Diaz mostly handled the play right.

1. F3 Martinez had the ball and lost it as he was tagging the BR. NO OBS here.
2. BR jumped over and around the tag and tumbled to the ground, never hitting the base.
3. F1 Pavano got the ball, flipped it to F3 who touched the bag. All the while the coach is hustling the BR back to the bag, and he gets there safely.
4. Time was called, and there was the long-term discussion between the manager and Diaz and the crew chief.
5. The point is that the once the BR flipped over the bag, he was considered to have reached the bag for purposes of the play and had to be tagged to be called out. He was never tagged.

The only thing I did not see Diaz do is signal safe, or no tag, during the play, but he may well have been out of camera range when he made his signal. He did not signal safe when the BR touched 1B again.

After the play, the Indians' field staff had a meeting in the dugout where Eric Wedge explained the call to them. They probably had never seen this type of call before.

To your specific Question
 

In OBR and NCAA, you point to the play, yell "That's Obstruction", and let the play go. You don;t have to look like a moving mailbox with your arm sticking out.

I feel your pain.

Here is the video of this play (first clip). I agree that there's no obstruction or interference on this play: ball, fielder, and batter-runner all happen to arrive at the same place at the same time, and the ball pops out.

The BR missed the base, and crawled back to tag it. The Indians played on as if tagging the bag were sufficient; the umpire ruled along the lines of J/R's "relaxed/unrelaxed" action.

For those who don't know that ruling: according to J/R, the BR has acquired the base when he passes it, even if he doesn't touch it. The missed-base appeal will then be ruled on depending on what the runner does:
1. if he is scrambling back to the base (as in this play) action is "unrelaxed," and the RUNNER must be tagged.
2. if he is not trying to get back to the base (wandering around down the baseline), then action is "relaxed," and either the runner or the base may be tagged.
In the OP, the only explanation for not calling the BR out is that Laz Diaz is applying this interpretation: the fielder clearly had the ball and tagged the base before the BR got his hand on it.

This interpretation is somewhat controversial, since the black letter text of 7.10(b) permits tagging either the runner or the base ("Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when ... (b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.") I had heard that pro enforcement of this rule had dispensed with the J/R interpretation.

I guess Laz Diaz thinks otherwise. And I'll add, just for JK: another controversial play happens with the Indians on the field and — wait for it — goes against them. ;)

I just watched the video as well. Let me say at outset that my first comment is really more a question because I am not sure if I am right in my thinking.

1) Once F3 boots the ball, in other words he had the opportunity to field it and does not, does he not lose protection and therefore may be in jeopardy of committing obstruction? What makes this play interesting to me is that runners are keyed in to staying in the running lane heading to 1B and so Anderson was doing what he supposed to. Had F3 been fielding on the initial attempt, I think Anderson would have been guilty of interference but that's not what happened.

2) I can't figure out the J/R interpretation. Either you touched the bag or you didn't and if you didn't, the force should still be on. If Laz has no OBS or INT, then the runner should be out because the base was tagged prior to the runner legally acquiring it. I don't fall out very often on the players side when it comes to the rules but there is no way any player will know in a situation like this when to tag the bag or runner .

Lawrence

MByron
 

I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, BTW.

I am glad there are other long suffering Cleveland fans willing to come out of the closet, sans bag over their head. How many umpiring dates have you lost this year?

I agree on no OBS...When I saw the original play and replays, I did not realize that the 1B had the ball. I thought he had booted it a second time. In that case-1B boots the ball then, without the ball flips the runner....THAT would be OBS, right? I cannot see putting that runner in jeoipardy if he only missed the base because of a mugging by a fielder without the ball. Furthermore, it was an Injuns player and most of those are flat out bad people anyway.

Joe In Missouri

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball. I don't know why he would run the left edge of the running lane when that is where the tag is likely to be attempted, when he could be running farther right.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

Don,

Good point on my first bullet. I guess I wasn't sure that he ever had the ball in his glove but on further review he did, albeit rather briefly.

Lawrence

~Cripes~
 

Mr Washburn you should be ashamed.

Using the politically incorrect term of "Injuns" in the title.

I am sure the righteous PC group oin this board are spinning in their seats.

Made Up 2nd Bullet
 

Think of the missed base play in terms of an errant throw into DBT.

A) 1st play by an infielder, at TOP and prior to missed base.
1) Either a touch of 1B or a tag of the B/R is needed.

B) 2nd play by an infielder, at TOT or after base has been legally acquired by B/R.
2) F3 must tag the B/R and does not.

Sound good?

Edited for clarity. ;)

Video doesn't really show it but he should have made a call of some kind. Either safe or out. Looks like he just did nothing even from the different angle.

Thanks
David