Catcher covering third base
 

Was watching an MLB game this weekend, saw this play.

I forget where runners were, etc, but here's what happened: There was a runner going from second to third, and there was going to be a play. Somehow, the catcher ended up covering third base on the play. The throw came in, and the catcher missed it. The runner slid in headfirst, and the catcher laid on top of him while the ball was loose in left field.

The catcher didn't appear hurt, thus provoking the question, why no obstruction?

Did the runner end up scoring? How long did he lie on him? Needs time to get disentangled.

No obstruction on the initial play as the catcher was in the act of fielding the throw.

Ok I give up. "Why no obstruction?"

The runner enjoyed it.
The umpire missed it
It was Friday.
The catcher enjoyed it.
The umpire enjoyed the catcher and runner enjoying it.

What game? How about some video? How about more details???????????????????

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

Thanks for finding the video UmpJM.

Castro was also shaken up on the play. Would that factor into the umpire's decision?

Ok,

Two players collided and both were bruised because of it. No harm, no foul no obstruction. I agree with the call.

Even Panella didn't argue that long.

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 see 2 possible explanations for the apparent no-call:

1. What JM said: OBS WAS called, and the runner was protected to 3B. BUT, the remedy for Type B is negating the OBS, and with the ball rolling way out to LF a runner could have scored. I doubt that the award would have been only 3B.

2. The runner was hurt, and so lying on him didn't hinder him or prevent him from advancing.

Nothing suggests that OBS was called at all, which further undermines (1), so I think (2) is better.

Viewed it again and not having been there and only by what I saw, I still agree with the no call.

I don't agree with the no call. F2 had plenty of time to even make an effort to get off of the runner.

EDIT:

It is OBS and he should have been scored. I watched it again and R1 did try to get up. After trying, he goes down holding his shoulder which may have only caused the pain b/c F2 was laying on him. I, too after reviewing again, would score him.

Gotta love the idiot announcers. INT? I guess they wanted R1 called out then instead of him being awarded HP. Also, give Castro credit. He put his hand on 3B and waited until he knew "Time" was called. Many would have been off the base and wondered why they were later called out if "Time" wasn't called.

I do not know why trained umpires call people idiots for saying obstruction instead of interference. Most people don't know the difference in terminology, but a casual viewer can easily understand what they mean.

I've had partners correct coaches when they say "interference" instead of "obstruction" and all it does is make the umpire look like an a$$hole. I will simply translate and respond as if the coach used the proper word the first time. Easy enough.

Well it looked to me like BOTH players were injured on the play as a result of the collision. If that was the reason they both layed there OR if there was some other, we will never know.

I can only make a call based upon what I saw. Your calls may be just a valid as mine. JMO

I have to disagree with you just a little bit on this issue. For one the people that say this are mostly on officiating boards like this or amongst other officials. But details matter and if someone uses the wrong term, it usually goes along with other misunderstandings. I do not know how many people call for a rules violation, and then do not understand the application. For example at least at the FED level, when there is an obstruction people think they get more than one base. I understand what you are saying, but details always matter and we know announcers start using terminology in all kinds of areas and they are completely wrong about the application.

I can think of the play that was posted here where there was a fly ball to center fielder that attempted to catch a ball then the ball hit the glove and went through his grasp and hit the ground. The announcer immediately started ripping the umpire and claiming that it was a catch because it hit the glove and the CF was just trying to make a throw. Well there is this little detail of rulebook language that talks about voluntary release and what constitutes a catch more than just hitting the glove. Details matter and add to the credibility of your argument. This is why I am actually impressed with announcers that use rulebook language in their explanation much more than those that use the terms that are either confusing or totally incorrect.

Peace

We aren't talking about "most" people or a "casual viewer". We are talking about announcers. I didn't say "idiot viewers" or "idiot fans". If taken in the correct context, then the bias feelings toward announcers would be understood. Especially given how they waste no time to comment on something which they have no idea about. Then, if they find out to be wrong later, it is a casual "Oh, I was wrong" attitude. But, if they are right, it is a "I'll show them" attitude and continue to harp on it until a week later.

They act like they "know" the game and have no issues with being wrong on TV for all to see. Then, the "casual viewer" uses it incorrectly as well. I don't expect nor treat a "casual viewer" the same as I treat and should expect a commentator to know what they are talking about. If they don't, then they are an idiot. Too lazy and incompetent to learn about what they are talking about.

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