2013 World Series Thread

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.).

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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".

Originally Posted by UMP45

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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]

Ignore the troll.