The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 24, 2009, 09:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction?

Anybody see Rob Drake call obstruction on Cincy's F5 on Sunday? Grady Sizemore might have barely brushed him running from 3B to home on an overthrow, gets thrown out at the plate, and then is awarded home on the OBS.

Contact is not necessary for OBS, but I didn't see Sizemore have to move at all.

Naturally, the commentator in the video calls it "interference."

Here's the link.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 24, 2009, 10:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 175
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.
__________________
Ump Rube
-----------------------------------------------------
Ump (uhmp) shorted form; an official in a sport who rules on plays.
Rube (roob) slang; sports fan who listens to KFAN in Minneapolis, MN.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 24, 2009, 10:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump Rube View Post
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"
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 24, 2009, 11:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
I don't see OBS there.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 24, 2009, 11:31pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 12:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 08:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 336
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!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 08:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,226
That's a little picky to be calling obstruction... I would have nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,118
Red face

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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 10:33am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwwashburn View Post
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
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.....
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 10:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 42
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!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 10:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 02:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz17 View Post
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........
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 25, 2009, 02:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 173
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obstruction..... phillips.alex Baseball 19 Sat Mar 11, 2006 09:54pm
Obstruction whiskers_ump Softball 38 Fri Mar 11, 2005 07:26am
Obstruction?-Nothing? chuckfan1 Baseball 8 Wed Sep 08, 2004 03:06pm
Obstruction sprivitor Softball 16 Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:46am
Obstruction finfan Softball 2 Thu Apr 17, 2003 08:33pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1