Catcher covering third base

[bas2456]

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?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bas2456

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.

[jicecone]

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???????????????????

[UmpJM]

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

[bas2456]

Thanks for finding the video UmpJM.

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

[jicecone]

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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

[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.

[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.