Catcher covering third base

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You seem to think that the only way to love the game is the umpire's way.

I didn't get that from what he said at all. I can live with a fan or friend of mine saying it wrong. But announcers have SOME responsibility to know what they are talking about because they are in a "if he said it it must be true" capacity. And if you think baseball announcers are bad - go watch just a single softball game with a softball umpire. Ugh!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

No, the runner did not score.

The catcher obviously and blatantly intentionally remained on top of the runner in order to prevent his advance.

It looked like no obstruction was ever called. Debatable whether the runner would have scored or not absent the obstruction.

See for yourself:

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | CHC@HOU: Castro finds himself stuck under the catcher - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

JM

Watch the reaction of both the 3B coach and the umpire. They know the runner is hurt and not going anywhere. The catcher starts up as the runner starts up then something (sound most likely) lets all involved know things are not normal. The catcher also discovers he is hurt and flops back down.

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.

[UmpJM]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

The thing we can't tell from just looking is whether the catcher's "repositioning" as you call it was really an attempt to get up but something hurt and he couldn't. So, uppon watching the video, we have expressed different viewpoints and neither of us knows which is really correct - or whether there's some third thing.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The thing we can't tell from just looking is whether the catcher's "repositioning" as you call it was really an attempt to get up but something hurt and he couldn't. So, uppon watching the video, we have expressed different viewpoints and neither of us knows which is really correct - or whether there's some third thing.

Rich,

I believe I completely agree with your point.

The best and most compelling argument against the use of video replay, IMO.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Is the video link not working for you?

This was absolutely and intentionally obstruction.

Type B. Had I been the ump, I likely would have scored Castro. Arguable, but the offense is getting ALL the benefit of the doubt here.

I'm guessing Lou dropped it because U3 told him he only had Castro protected to 3B. Which is a rasonable and supportable ruling.

JM

I agree. It looked to me like he tried to get up and could not, and maybe the injury came from trying with a catcher on your back. In any event, the catcher laying on him definitely prevented him from getting up and from where the ball rolled he could have reasonably scored.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You seem to think that the only way to love the game is the umpire's way.

No. Completely wrong. It has nothing to do with that.

[johnnyg08]

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...

[UmpJM]

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

[Welpe]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You seem to think that the only way to love the game is the umpire's way.

You mean there is another way?

[etn_ump]

I've got NOTHING.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

I couldn't care less what annoucers say. I live with listening to Mike Shannon on the radio, so my announcer's knowledge of the rules are a bit low.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

For the record, I have had the misfortune of being a Cubs fan since 1963......

Look at the bright side......

You could have been a Cubs fan since 1909.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Look at the bright side......

You could have been a Cubs fan since 1909.

I can't tell if it's the silver lining you always manage to find -- or the cloud.