The Official Forum
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   2013 World Series Thread (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/96369-2013-world-series-thread.html)

bluehair Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 909137)
I have stopped scheduling umpires who kept saying this. At the moment of obstruction, you determine the award. In some codes, post-obstruction evidence can be used ... but you NEVER EVER require a runner to attempt to reach an awarded base. The base award here was home, regardless of whether he tried to score or not. (If you don't rule this way, then tackling this runner and laying on top of him would prevent the score every time.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 909245)
You'd have to stop scheduling me, then. Although I'd ask the question -- how the hell would you know when I'm deciding since I'm not announcing anything other than acknowledging that obstruction occurred until playing action is over?
I think you mis-interpreted what MDL was saying (or I am). I think his point was that if an umpire thinks that because a runner didn't try to advance after being obstructed is, and of itself, a reason not award base(s), then he doesn't want to assign that umpire games.

Rich Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 909261)
I don't think I would know it from actions I saw on the field. I have stopped scheduling umpires who felt a runner HAD to attempt to achieve the award base - after they told me they felt a runner HAD TO attempt to achieve the award base, and would not listen when the rule was explained to them.

The play here is not a good example of what I'm talking about though.

Envision what appears to be a hit where a runner from first is easily going to make third. However, F6 is watching the ball out in right field and collides into the runner, knocking him down. The ball is retrieved, the runner gets back up and scrambles back to 2nd. You, as umpire, know he would have made 3rd, likely even without a throw.

You award third. The runner does not have to try to get to third. And I've had umpires who insist that since the runner didn't attempt to go to third, they will not award third. Even if I explain to them that if their ruling is correct, F3 could simply tackle a fast runner on an apparent triple, and keep him from trying for 2nd -- and they would award first because the runner didn't try to go to 2nd (or 3rd). That's absurd. And I think most of you would agree.
Well, we're talking about different things, then.

MD Longhorn Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 909264)
Well, we're talking about different things, then.
It was to this that I replied... "If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not." That statement is simply untrue, and would have been untrue in the scenario HE was replying to --- the case where the tripping was bad enough that the runner didn't attempt to go home.

jicecone Tue Oct 29, 2013 07:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 909266)
It was to this that I replied... "If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not." That statement is simply untrue, and would have been untrue in the scenario HE was replying to --- the case where the tripping was bad enough that the runner didn't attempt to go home.
I will admit I was confused about the timing of the decision to award or not award and a min award for Type B OBS however, I never said that the runner HAD TO attempt to go home. If he doesn't though, you can't assume anything but you will still have to make a ruling based upon the facts that happened prior to completion of play.

If Craig tripped, stood up and stayed at third, would it have been an automatic award of home???

Manny A Wed Oct 30, 2013 07:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 909350)
If Craig tripped, stood up and stayed at third, would it have been an automatic award of home???
Once again, with emphasis: There is no "automatic" award for Type B Obstruction!

Now, if Craig stayed at third base on this play, it's quite possible that the umpires would award him home if they felt he intended to advance, didn't because of the trip, and would have made it safely home if he had. No different than awarding the batter-runner second base on a gapper after he collides with a clueless F3 standing in the path, and then crawls back to first.

But that would've been a tough sell, given Craig's speed (or lack thereof) on the bases, and the way Nava backed up the play. The fact that Craig did get up and made it a close play at home lessened the doubt on the PU's judgment.

jicecone Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 909385)
Once again, with emphasis: There is no "automatic" award for Type B Obstruction!

Now, if Craig stayed at third base on this play, it's quite possible that the umpires would award him home if they felt he intended to advance, didn't because of the trip, and would have made it safely home if he had. No different than awarding the batter-runner second base on a gapper after he collides with a clueless F3 standing in the path, and then crawls back to first.

But that would've been a tough sell, given Craig's speed (or lack thereof) on the bases, and the way Nava backed up the play. The fact that Craig did get up and made it a close play at home lessened the doubt on the PU's judgment.
My point exactly.

MD Longhorn Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 909350)
If Craig tripped, stood up and stayed at third, would it have been an automatic award of home???
Absolutely not automatic. Definitely possible, and completely judgement on U3's part.

Rita C Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 909261)
I don't think I would know it from actions I saw on the field. I have stopped scheduling umpires who felt a runner HAD to attempt to achieve the award base - after they told me they felt a runner HAD TO attempt to achieve the award base, and would not listen when the rule was explained to them.

The play here is not a good example of what I'm talking about though.

Envision what appears to be a hit where a runner from first is easily going to make third. However, F6 is watching the ball out in right field and collides into the runner, knocking him down. The ball is retrieved, the runner gets back up and scrambles back to 2nd. You, as umpire, know he would have made 3rd, likely even without a throw.

You award third. The runner does not have to try to get to third. And I've had umpires who insist that since the runner didn't attempt to go to third, they will not award third. Even if I explain to them that if their ruling is correct, F3 could simply tackle a fast runner on an apparent triple, and keep him from trying for 2nd -- and they would award first because the runner didn't try to go to 2nd (or 3rd). That's absurd. And I think most of you would agree.
Works for me.

AremRed Tue Nov 05, 2013 09:49pm
With the exception of a few PU's with an inconsistent (at times) zone, I thought this postseason was very well officiated. I started thinking this during the LC series, and the World Series was even more exciting! Great ending.

UMP45 Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 909953)
With the exception of a few PU's with an inconsistent (at times) zone, I thought this postseason was very well officiated. I started thinking this during the LC series, and the World Series was even more exciting! Great ending.
Inconsistent as compared to what? The box on tv or what you thought was a ball/strike? Not bashing but it just sounds like coaches and fans hollering "be consistent".

AremRed Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP45 (Post 909955)
Inconsistent as compared to what? The box on tv or what you thought was a ball/strike? Not bashing but it just sounds like coaches and fans hollering "be consistent".
There were two PU's during the Cards-Dodgers series that I felt did a poor job of being consistent on close strikeout calls. I am talking about less than 10 pitches total in those two games and I will not be more specific.

Steven Tyler Wed Nov 06, 2013 01:01am
If Allan Craig knew how to run the bases there might not have been a game six. Only a 10 year old runs bases the way he did. He made so many blunders in fundamentals for an MLB player.

He started and stopped. Hesitated. Started back to second. Decides to run to 3B. Is almost out there. [Wouldn't have even been a play attempt if knew how to follow the R3 down] Knocks down F5. Stares out into left field as if there is something out there to see. Trips and fall over the player he knocked down and gets thrown out at home. All this with a bad leg. Right TMac.

Umpires pick up an extra game check............it's all good.

I'll say it one more time. It's not the call I so much disagree with. It's the reasons why it would be called obstruction.

Finis!!!!

dash_riprock Wed Nov 06, 2013 07:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler (Post 909965)

I'll say it one more time. It's not the call I so much disagree with. It's the reasons why it would be called obstruction.
There is only one reason obstruction is ever called - the runner is hindered by a fielder who is neither in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding it.

bob jenkins Wed Nov 06, 2013 08:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler (Post 909965)
Umpires pick up an extra game check!
I don't think that's true. (I know it didn't used to be true; haven't followed it in a number of years.)

Manny A Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:57pm
Ignore the troll.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32pm.
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1