![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're from the Chicago area are you not? Perhaps a tainted view? See with your head, not your feelings. Obstruction didn't get called when the Toronto catcher fell on Jeter and dislocated Jeter's shoulder either. In fact, Jeter ended up out on a tag as he lay hurt on the ground. The big beef then was that Toronto took too long toget the ambulance out. |
Rich,
For the record, I have had the misfortune of being a Cubs fan since 1963 - but I honestly don't believe it's affecting my judgement of this play. To be clear, I am not suggesting the original collision was obstruction, not the initial "tangle" between the F2 and R2. The F2 was clearly in "the act of fielding" the throw when the collision occurred. However, if you observe the video carefully, you will see the following: 1. The F2 initially lands on the back of R2's legs at about the knees when he initially fell on the sliding R2. 2. The Cubs 3B Coach is initially directing the runner to advance to home as the ball gets away and the closest defensive player is F7 who is a good distance away. 3. As the runner tries to push himself up with his arms, the F2 adjusts his position so that he is lying on the R2's torso, instead of just his legs, and makes no effort to stop hindering the runner. 4. When the runner gets to the "top" of his "push up", he then reacts with pain and goes back down. 5. The 3B Coach then instructs him to touch 3B (which the runner had not yet done). I happened to be watching the game live when this play occurred, and they had a couple of additional shots from different angles that made all this more obvious than the clip posted on the mlb.com website does. Based on all the interpretations I have seen, and the plain text of the rule, since the F2 made no effort to get off the runner and the runner did, in fact, try to get up - but couldn't with the F2 lying on top of him, this is undoubtedly Obstruction - and a pretty flagrant violation. I would agree that it would be a bit of a stretch to award the R2 home on the play - so ultimately, the result was probably correct. In regard to the issue about the announcers saying "interfered" instead of "obstructed" - I'm with Rich. Anyone who thins the announcers have the first clue about the actual rules (with the possible exception of Steve Stone & 1 or 2 others) is delusional. If an umpire says "interfere" instead of "obstruct", then there's an issue. Otherwise, so what. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I believe I completely agree with your point. The best and most compelling argument against the use of video replay, IMO. JM |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
after watching the video...I agree that they got the call right. We can't hear the runner possibly screaming or the pain level that's going on there. he was probably able to tell that he wasn't going anywhere...therefore was not going to call OBS...
|
johnny,
That is a complete misread of the video. The runner clearly tried to get up. The fielder cleaqrly tried to impede him from doing so. When the runner reacted with pain and stopped trying to get up, the catcher quickly and easily got off of the runner. Absolutely a flagrant obstruction violation. And the catcher was clearly not injured to the point that he was unable to get off of the runner - not that it would make any difference in regard to his liability for obstruction. JM |
JM, I read it the same way you did. I think in this situation I would be protecting the runner to 3B and no further.
|
Quote:
|
I've got NOTHING.
|
Quote:
That said, the issue most umpires have is that the annoucers spend so much time talking about how bad the umpires are. "Horrible call! What was he thinking?!" is the best you can hear. Then, when the replays show that the umpire was correct, all we get is a "Oh. He was safe." Not one mention of how well the umpire made the call, or how well the rules were applied -- without the use of a rule book at the time. Then, annoucers confuse things like INT and OBS. They don't know the IFF rule. They don't understand balks, awarding of bases, catches, or even fair/foul calls. Many times, they want the umpires to make their calls based on the situation; other times, they think the umpire did and blast them for it. They imply the umpires are calling things for one team, but not the other. Obviously, almost all of it is only to argue that the call was wrong for their team. For someone that gets paid to know the game, they know very little about the rules. Then, they blast the ones that do. |
Quote:
You could have been a Cubs fan since 1909. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30pm. |