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
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 02, 2009, 06:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
Then, as the ball skittered over in the direction of F6, F5 obstructed R3. Blatantly. But, at that point in time, no "play" was being made on R3 because the ball was "loose".
The ball was nearby, and F5's rationale for tying up the runner was to have his teammate pick up the ball and tag the runner.

That's still a play on the runner and thus Type A OBS.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 02, 2009, 07:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via AIM to RPatrino Send a message via Yahoo to RPatrino
Mike has it right. There was a play being made on the runner, so that makes this Type A obstruction. My interpretation is that in a run down situation, a runner being run back to a base is still having a play made upon him.
__________________
Bob P.

-----------------------
We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 02, 2009, 07:37pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
And F5 was purposely holding Cabrera in a figure-4 leg lock for the express purpose of tagging him with the ball, and that constitutes a play on the runner. If the ball were being played to another base, then the argument for Type B would hold water.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 02, 2009, 09:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via AIM to RPatrino Send a message via Yahoo to RPatrino
Maybe Mark Loretta was looking for a win by submission?
__________________
Bob P.

-----------------------
We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 12:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPatrino View Post
Maybe Mark Loretta was looking for a win by submission?
The Dodgers can't get a win any other way these days...
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
The ball was nearby, and F5's rationale for tying up the runner was to have his teammate pick up the ball and tag the runner.

That's still a play on the runner and thus Type A OBS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPatrino View Post
Mike has it right. There was a play being made on the runner, so that makes this Type A obstruction. My interpretation is that in a run down situation, a runner being run back to a base is still having a play made upon him.
Michael & Bob,

The following definition of "a play", which is defined nowhere in the text of the rules, appears in the MLBUM:

Quote:
...A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or
actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.) ...
While I would agree that a "...runner in a rundown..." who is obstructed is properly ruled "Type A" and that the runner was being "played upon" just prior to the obstruction occurring, at the time of the obstruction, he was NOT being played upon.

No member of the defense had possession of the ball and no throw was in progress. The ball was "loose".

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 224
And while everyone super analizes this play (and may freeze up on the field due to the many combinations that run through their minds) the Big League guys just react and use common sense. These types of plays separate the men from the boys, no matter the level of competition one calls.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
Michael & Bob,

The following definition of "a play", which is defined nowhere in the text of the rules, appears in the MLBUM:



While I would agree that a "...runner in a rundown..." who is obstructed is properly ruled "Type A" and that the runner was being "played upon" just prior to the obstruction occurring, at the time of the obstruction, he was NOT being played upon.

No member of the defense had possession of the ball and no throw was in progress. The ball was "loose".

JM
Wow! That's a really BIG stretch.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 01:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via AIM to RPatrino Send a message via Yahoo to RPatrino
Jim, if the defense is in the process of a run down, and the runner is obstructed while retreating to the previous base, and the defense err's by dropping the ball in the rundown, would you call that Type B obstruction?

You might argue in 'theory' that because no member of the defense possessed control of the ball at the time of the obstruction that it would be Type B, but would you CALL that?
__________________
Bob P.

-----------------------
We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 04:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
No member of the defense had possession of the ball and no throw was in progress. The ball was "loose".
John, you have the facts correct, of course. But consider the following scenario: the play develops just as in the OP, except for the end.

1. F5 releases the runner as F6 picks up the loose ball, and then
2. F6 tags the runner before he can get back to 3B.

On your interp, you must call this Type B OBS and protect the runner back to 3B. You're calling it Type B because at the moment when the OBS took place no member of the defense had possession of the ball, and so there was no play on the runner.

The defense played on the runner immediately before and immediately after the OBS in my modified scenario. For me, that's sufficient to rule this Type A and award the runner home. For me, this ruling is most consistent with the spirit of the distinction between Type A and Type B OBS.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 04:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
Remember, this is the MLB rule. Some rule sets, like LL, you'll need to have the ball to be in the way. Here, it's just on the way. So in LL you'd have seen OBS called right away.

So you saw the "that's nothing" fists out call initially, on the contact. Then you should have seen TIME! called to let the other umpires note where the BR was, for placement. That didn't happen, and the BR got second.

My question: Should the BR have been awarded second?
Not true for LL. You CAN have obstruction WITHOUT the fielder having the ball in their possession.

Referenece: 2009 LLBB Rulebook- 7.06(b)...Pg.73
2009 LLBB Casebook- Pg. 27-28: Rule 7.06 Play 7-4 and Play 7-5
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 05:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
I watched that clip 50 times trying to discern various things. I momentarily considered the fact that the ball was loose, but I agree that, "in the spirit of the distinction," this is type A OBS. The OBS derived from a play in which the runner was being directly played upon.

R1 has a big lead. F1 catches him flat-footed and fires a pick-off throw in the dirt and to F3's right. F3 dives into the baseline in an attempt to block the ball. The ball bounces off F3 and is rolling toward the 1B dugout as R1 dives back toward 1B and gets tangled with F3. R1 crawls around F3 and grabs 1B as F2 picks up the ball. That has to be type A OBS as well (doesn't it?), even though at the time of the OBS, the ball was loose and there was no chance of putting R1 out.

I think of type 2 as "BR trips over F3 with the ball in the alley."
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 06:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp View Post
Not true for LL. You CAN have obstruction WITHOUT the fielder having the ball in their possession.

Referenece: 2009 LLBB Rulebook- 7.06(b)...Pg.73
2009 LLBB Casebook- Pg. 27-28: Rule 7.06 Play 7-4 and Play 7-5
That's what Kyle said.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 07:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
That's what Kyle said.
I understood him to say you have to have the ball in LL to have OBS...if I missed something in the post my apologies.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 03, 2009, 08:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp View Post
I understood him to say you have to have the ball in LL to have OBS...if I missed something in the post my apologies.
It wasn't as clear as it could have been but Kyle said:

"Some rule sets, like LL, you'll need to have the ball to be in the way."

Which means if you have the ball then you can be in the way - thus NOT obstructing.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
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 Call- LA Dodgers game jmkupka Softball 39 Wed Oct 07, 2009 01:27pm
Dodgers v. Reds - Dead ball missed travlinmatt Baseball 16 Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:17pm
Mets/Dodgers SanDiegoSteve Baseball 11 Thu Oct 05, 2006 08:44am
Cardinals vs Dodgers Game 3 dddunn3d Baseball 5 Fri Oct 15, 2004 01:48pm
Cardinals VS. Dodgers Game 4 gordon30307 Baseball 14 Fri Oct 15, 2004 01:45pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1