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.

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!

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.

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.

Rich,

I believe I completely agree with your point.

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

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.

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

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.

You mean there is another way?:confused:

I've got NOTHING.

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.

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. :p