CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction?

[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.

[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 ....

[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.

[johnnyg08]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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]

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]

got it...thx. I mixed up this play w/ a different video being discussed. I stand corrected...thx for pointing that out.

[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?

[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.