CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

Even MLB.com is calling it INT. (Says so in the caption) Although I have a rough connection at home right now (just a little choppy) it looks like a simple call to me. The runner, although slight, did adjust his running path due to F5 in the basepath.

With a good connection, I agree. F5 was in the basepath.

Also, the announcer called it a "triple with an interference error"

[dash_riprock]

I don't see OBS there.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Had the F5 caused the runner to deviate his path in the slightest, it would have been obstruction. However, I did not see what Drake apparently saw. I saw the runner run right past F5 with no deviation in his path. He just got thrown out at the plate. Looked like a bad call to me.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Had the F5 caused the runner to deviate his path in the slightest, it would have been obstruction. However, I did not see what Drake apparently saw. I saw the runner run right past F5 with no deviation in his path. He just got thrown out at the plate. Looked like a bad call to me.

Agreed. I really didn't see Sizemore changing his path at all. F5 didn't do anything to slow him down or obstruct him. Drake kicked it.

[archangel]

I was watching that game live yesterday with my adult son. He knows that I never get animated about an officials "call" during any sport....except yesterday.
Knowing that every umpire make mistakes, and the fact that MLB showed replays from like 7 different angles after it happened, I just cant see how that call was even made.

Or maybe, because Im a Reds fan, I wonder if I'm suffering from that mental disease that we've all seen, during our games, when fans complain on our good calls---fan bias!
Help me, doctor!

[bossman72]

That's a little picky to be calling obstruction... I would have nothing.

[jwwashburn]

Rob Drake had a completely different angle than we did. Also, he got rid of his mullett...sooooo I give him the benefit of the doubt.

But look at this other clip...do you notice anything on the play at the plate? Do you see a tag?

Joe in Missouri

[David B]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I don't see OBS there.

He called it, but if I were doing a clinic for umpires, this would be one of those that I would use to say, "this is NOT obstruction".

He never interfered with the runners path, he simply moved his shoulder just a little to get past the fielder. The runner did not lose any momentum.

I think the replay shows the umpires was really watching the ball until the last second when he looks at the runner just as he passes the fielder. He then immediately calls the obstruction.

Does make you wonder what he saw that doesn't show on the video though ...

Thansk
David

[Paul L]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

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.....

Originally Posted by Paul L

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.

[Blue37]

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]

Originally Posted by Blue37

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.

[waltjp]

I didn't see obstruction.

I didn't see a tag.