CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 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

Yes, Hanigan very clearly never touched Sizemore. The phantom obstruction call wasn't even necessary. How ironic.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Yes, Hanigan very clearly never touched Sizemore. The phantom obstruction call wasn't even necessary. How ironic.

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.....

[Maz17]

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!

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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!

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........

[Maz17]

Originally Posted by umpjong

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]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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?

[Maz17]

Originally Posted by umpjong

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?

And yes... you are going with the rule written in section 2.00, but if you look up 7.06 types a and b, and also MLB Manual 6.20 and 6.23 You will see why Drake enforced his call.

I AM GONNA SHOUT THIS! MLB UMPIRES, AND THAT IS WHO WE ARE CRITICIZING ON THIS POST... DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GO WITH THE OBR ALONE. You can direct all the comments you want at me and say how wrong I am and how a I don't know bull. But here is the long and short of it. I sent a email to a MLB ump who was assured by Mike Port (VP of umpiring) that the call was correct by Rob Drake. So... take that video and study it, if you want to enforce things like a MLB ump.

WELL DONE ROB DRAKE!

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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.

[Maz17]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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.

That is not a degree. It is two different types. Labeled types a and b, because it has two different stipulations. If a play is being made or not. That is not a degree of obstruction, its labeling obstruction based on a important stipulation, which there in sense gives a different penalty.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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!

I just said to give him support for his lack of a mullet.

He is paid the amount that they said they would pay him-so what is the problem? He chooses to work without a contract or pension. Most everyone in the USA works without a contract and almost NOBODY has a pension.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Maz17

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 ....