2013 World Series Thread

[aceholleran]

Two burning questions:

a) Shouldn't Demuth have called "time" as soon as the tag was applied, then given the award?

b) what if Craig stays at third? Any award?

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

Two burning questions:

a) Shouldn't Demuth have called "time" as soon as the tag was applied, then given the award?

b) what if Craig stays at third? Any award?

a) I think that if a play is being made on the obstructed runner then the umpire calling the obstruction (Jim Joyce) should kill the play and make the award.

b) I think that the contact only happened after he made a move towards home so I say OBS regardless, even if he turned around and returned to third IF in the judgement of Joyce the reason he didn't advance was due to the OBS.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

a) I think that if a play is being made on the obstructed runner then the umpire calling the obstruction (Jim Joyce) should kill the play and make the award.

b) I think that the contact only happened after he made a move towards home so I say OBS regardless, even if he turned around and returned to third IF in the judgement of Joyce the reason he didn't advance was due to the OBS.

At the point that the ball passed Middlebrook a new play started in which the runner was attemping to go home. This was Type B or Type 2 OBS and is a delayed dead ball.

[Illini_Ref]

Thanks for the clarification.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

Two burning questions:

a) Shouldn't Demuth have called "time" as soon as the tag was applied, then given the award?

b) what if Craig stays at third? Any award?

a)I agree, according to the PBUC manual should have called time and then enforce. He signaled safe and then pointed to Joyce.

b) Then that is where he is. If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not. I think Joe Torre refers to the Tejada play several year ago when even though he was obstructed he quit running and returned to third.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

a)I think Joe Torre refers to the Tejada play several year ago when even though he was obstructed he quit running and returned to third.

If memory serves, Tejada was obstructed rounding third, and then he slowed up and basically jogged to home, getting thrown out by a long shot. The out stood because he assumed (wrongly, obviously) that he would be automatically awarded home.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not.

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.).

[umpjim]

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.).

I'm a little confused here. A previous post exampled an MLB play where, I believe the runner, thinking he was protected to HP, jogged in and was thrown out and the out stood. What am I missing? In type B or 2 don't you judge the hindrance and if it didn't make a difference call the play as is?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I'm a little confused here. A previous post exampled an MLB play where, I believe the runner, thinking he was protected to HP, jogged in and was thrown out and the out stood. What am I missing? In type B or 2 don't you judge the hindrance and if it didn't make a difference call the play as is?

Not exactly. The runner is still obligated to run the bases, and then the umpire decides when play is over whether or not the hindrance affected that running. If the runner doesn't run the bases because he believes he's protected, which is what Miguel Tejada assumed, shame on him.

A's falter, Red Sox Trot off with Game 3 victory / Nixon rips game-winning HR in 11th, Boston narrows the series gap to 2-1 - SFGate

[Rich]

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.).

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 rarely determine the award at the moment the obstruction happens when it's Type B obstruction. Why should I? I have all the time in the world to weigh post-obstruction evidence to determine my actual award.

No reason to put myself into a corner at any point until I actually make the award.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Rich. My award is "20 feet" or something (although I'm sure I don't put that precise a definition on it) and then I decide what that means in baseball terms later.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with Rich. My award is "20 feet" or something (although I'm sure I don't put that precise a definition on it) and then I decide what that means in baseball terms later.

For me it may be distance or time, but it's all just an approximation like you said.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

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 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.

[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.