The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:15am.
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:31am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 07:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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???
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 30, 2013, 07:24am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 30, 2013, 10:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 30, 2013, 11:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 30, 2013, 11:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 05, 2013, 09:49pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 05, 2013, 10:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #86 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 06, 2013, 12:04am
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP45 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 06, 2013, 01:01am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
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!!!!
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 06, 2013, 07:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 06, 2013, 08:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler View Post
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #90 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 06, 2013, 12:57pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Ignore the troll.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2013 Ejection Thread scarolinablue Baseball 45 Sat Mar 16, 2013 05:07pm
World Series Zoochy Baseball 4 Sun Aug 21, 2011 07:34am
N.S.A World Series NEohioref Softball 58 Mon Aug 06, 2007 09:57pm
"Official" unofficial LL World Series Thread SanDiegoSteve Baseball 201 Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:17am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1