The Official Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/53359-cle-cin-5-24-obstruction.html)

SanDiegoSteve Mon May 25, 2009 05:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 604479)
I disagree...even with that view from a camera in slo-mo, it's hard to see (tag or no tag). How on earth can the PU make any other call...I think he got it right, from his view, making that split-second decision....Good call in my book....Like they say, hind sight.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L (Post 604507)
Looked like a timely tag just below the left knee, the view of which was blocked in that clip by the runner's arm. Or . . . maybe not. PU looked like he had a good view of it.
I disagree. I have never really liked the 1st base line for plays like this, and it looks like from his angle that there is no way he could see the tag, or lack thereof. 3BLX (or a less exaggerated move from the point of the plate toward 1st base would have given him a clear shot at the air gap between glove and shoulder. I didn't see anything below the knee. I'll take another 5 looks at it.

SanDiegoSteve Mon May 25, 2009 05:15pm
Uh, not so fast there, Brer Rabbit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz17 (Post 604480)
And that is why you guys are not in pro ball!
There are many reasons why this is the case, but this is not one of them.:cool:

Rich Mon May 25, 2009 05:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz17 (Post 604480)
All you kids are right... there was a phantom tag!

WITH THAT SAID! IT IS OBSTRUCTION. ANY DEVIATION OF HIS PATH IS! THAT LITTLE SHOULDER LEAN! OBSTRUCTION! YOU CAN PICK ON MLB GUYS ALL YOU WANT! DRAKE IS RIGHT! REPEAT! DRAKE IS RIGHT!

And that is why you guys are not in pro ball! It is a different interpretation at the MiLB/MLB level. The player should know better.

Ticky tacky call? So where do you draw the line? If he bulldozes him... okay I will call it? Your job is to enforce the rules, BLACK AND WHITE!

Dont give me this FED, Little League, PONY bull. Those kids are not professionals!

I say... good call! WAIT... I KNOW GOOD CALL!
So then, how did the fielder impede the runner?

I've seen the clip and I'm ambivalent about the call, to be honest. He called it and the mechanics he used were outstanding, but the call itself? I don't have the same angle he had, so ....

Blue37 Tue May 26, 2009 10:35am
Was listening to this game while driving home yesterday afternoon, and the announcer went on for innings about how it was a terrible call because there was no contact, implying you cannot have "interference" (sic) without contact.

SanDiegoSteve Tue May 26, 2009 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue37 (Post 604613)
Was listening to this game while driving home yesterday afternoon, and the announcer went on for innings about how it was a terrible call because there was no contact, implying you cannot have "interference" (sic) without contact.
Well, as usual, the announcers are flat out wrong. But I don't think there was "obstruction" either, but not because of no contact, but because of no obstruction. The runner did not have to deviate from his route, and the little amount he had to clear the fielder by lifting his shoulder did not affect the outcome of the play.

johnnyg08 Tue May 26, 2009 12:01pm
esp at the pro level, altering his path, even the slightest, can be the difference between safe and out. i guess that's why they get paid the big bucks, while the guys in the show aren't perfect either, they get a lot of them right...esp these types of calls.

Welpe Tue May 26, 2009 01:50pm
From the TV angles, I don't see Sizemore being impeded. Rob Drake did from his angle and sold the heck out of it so there you have it.

jwwashburn Tue May 26, 2009 02:14pm
And again...Drake got rid of his Mullet ...let's give him some support! I don't want him to fall off the wagon.

Joe in Missouri

kylejt Tue May 26, 2009 02:34pm
Even if it was obstruction, it was only type b, since the ball had long since left the area. So you're only going to make up for what was lost by the obstruction, which was absolutely nothing. The runner didn't lose a step, nor vary his path.

I'm okay with him calling it(not really, but...), but not for them to change their call based on it.

johnnyg08 Tue May 26, 2009 02:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt (Post 604684)
Even if it was obstruction, it was only type b, since the ball had long since left the area. So you're only going to make up for what was lost by the obstruction, which was absolutely nothing. The runner didn't lose a step, nor vary his path.

I'm okay with him calling it(not really, but...), but not for them to change their call based on it.
If losing a run is nothing...then...

UmpJM Tue May 26, 2009 03:22pm
johnny,

In order for the defense to be "making a play" on a runner, some member of the defense must have possession of the ball or a throw must be on the way in an attempt to retire the runner.

Since the defense was "chasing after a loose ball" at the time the obstruction alledgely occurred, it had to be Type B.

JM

johnnyg08 Tue May 26, 2009 03:23pm
got it...thx. I mixed up this play w/ a different video being discussed. I stand corrected...thx for pointing that out.

Maz17 Tue May 26, 2009 05:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 604506)
OBR definition says you are wrong..

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner

You must be able to state that the act impeded the progress of the runner.

(definition of impeded - made difficult or slow; )

Did this occur on this play, would he have been out if it had not occurred is the true question........
You are mistaken on your OBR application. He was not in posesion of the ball! Therefore, OBSTRUCTION. Also... all of this post can be cleared up by reading the MLB (or PBUC if you do not have one) Manual! This is obstruction! Sorry guys, but it is. There is no degree of obstruction. Full fledge or the slightest... its still obstruction.

And you are all right about showing Drake some support. The guy has been working his tail off since 99' with no contract or no pension plan! DRAKE... GOOD CALL!

umpjong Tue May 26, 2009 05:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz17 (Post 604727)
You are mistaken on your OBR application. He was not in posesion of the ball! Therefore, OBSTRUCTION. Also... all of this post can be cleared up by reading the MLB (or PBUC if you do not have one) Manual! This is obstruction! Sorry guys, but it is. There is no degree of obstruction. Full fledge or the slightest... its still obstruction.

And you are all right about showing Drake some support. The guy has been working his tail off since 99' with no contract or no pension plan! DRAKE... GOOD CALL!
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will default with the written rule.
You didnt answer the question either.
How was the runners progress impeded?

kylejt Wed May 27, 2009 03:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz17 (Post 604727)
There is no degree of obstruction.
Sure there is.

First, you've got two types, a and b. Type a is an automatic award of the next base, whereas b is a judgement call on negating the actual impedement. Giving him the plate was not an automatic. So for type b, there really are degrees for obstruction.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10pm.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1