WS obstruction

[Illini_Ref]

I was also wondering, as it appears kylejt is, why the dead-ball signal wasn't given. Since the runner was obstructed while a play was being made on him, shouldn't have JJ killed the play according to 7.06(a)?

[brainbrian]

Does it matter at all that the ball hit Craig when he slides into third base as you can see in the video at 2:02?

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

[Illini_Ref]

If a runner is obstructed going back to a base that he had legally touched like in a run-down, is he awarded that base or the next one? Rule says he gets at least one base in advance of the one last legally touched. That doesn't seem right in the case of a runner returning.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

If a runner is obstructed going back to a base that he had legally touched like in a run-down, is he awarded that base or the next one? Rule says he gets at least one base in advance of the one last legally touched. That doesn't seem right in the case of a runner returning.

7.06b
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no
further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such
penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

The runner was not Obstructed while a play was being made on him. He was obstructed while running the bases. Nor was he was obstructed going back to the base.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

Does it matter at all that the ball hit Craig when he slides into third base as you can see in the video at 2:02?

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

Not unless he intentionally attempted to interfere with F5 making the catch.

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by jicecone

7.06b
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no
further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such
penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

The runner was not Obstructed while a play was being made on him. He was obstructed while running the bases. Nor was he was obstructed going back to the base.

That makes sense.

I know he wasn't going back, I was just wondering about the OBR ruling for an obstructed runner while returning to a base already touched. The rule says he gets a base in advance of the one he last touched. Would this be an exception?

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Not unless he intentionally attempted to interfere with F5 making the catch.

Thank you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

This is irrelevent to last night because there was no appeal. However, at what point does Allen Craig have to touch the awarded base (HP)?

How much time is he given to do so? What if the catcher had stepped on the plate and appealed that AC didn't touch the plate?

Consider this: A1 hits a HR over the RF wall. As he touches first and rounds the base, he and the first-basement get into an altercation and both are ejected. Does the HR stand or is the BR also called out for not touching all the bases? Does his sub get to/have to finish touching the awarded bases?

That's alot of questions!!! Sorry. I know Rutledge isn't busy anyway. Get to answering.

LOL!!! I do go to church on Sunday.

My understanding at all levels is that when you call obstruction, you give them protection for at least one base. Now I believe OBR has some different kinds of obstruction so that might be the case here, but in NCAA and NF, Craig would have gotten home either way if he made and attempt to go home and their was obstruction called. It is possible I am not correct about that fact as I have backed away from baseball in the past few years, but that is the way it was when I was working regularly.

Peace

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

He's got to make an attempt toward home, to get consideration for an award. So, if an umpire decides there was any possibility that the runner could have scored without the OBS, they'll make that award when the play on that runner is over.

But, since this was the game ending run, they could have killed the play, and made that award right away.

I disagree. In most cases, he would have to make an attempt to get the award but, that should not be an absolute.

I had a runner get knocked unconscious by the lumbering 1B on an apparent triple. The CF and RF were shallow and he ripped it to the wall in Right Center and was quite speedy. The kid did not make an attempt to do anything other than hold his head, puke and pass out. He was awarded third.

Joe in Florida

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

If a runner is obstructed going back to a base that he had legally touched like in a run-down, is he awarded that base or the next one? Rule says he gets at least one base in advance of the one last legally touched. That doesn't seem right in the case of a runner returning.

It's right. Otherwise you reward the defense and punish the offense when the infraction was by the defense.

[rbmartin]

I don't like this call. I don't think it is realistic to expect the fielder to evaporate after an unsucessful attempting to field a ball.
Furthermore, in my judgement the fielder did not "continue to lie on the ground" since he had only been there for a fraction of a second.
Just because you can call obstruction doesn't mean you should call obstruction.
About the only good thing about this play is that is may serve to educate idiot fans (and announcers) the difference between obstruction and interference. Otherwise, I just don't like this application of this rule.

p.s. no fanboy here since I dislike both teams equally.

[constable]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

I don't like this call. I don't think it is realistic to expect the fielder to evaporate after an unsucessful attempting to field a ball.
Furthermore, in my judgement the fielder did not "continue to lie on the ground" since he had only been there for a fraction of a second.
Just because you can call obstruction doesn't mean you should call obstruction.
About the only good thing about this play is that is may serve to educate idiot fans (and announcers) the difference between obstruction and interference. Otherwise, I just don't like this application of this rule.

p.s. no fanboy here since I dislike both teams equally.

By rule and by interpretation this is the correct call. The runner has a right to run unimpeded. He couldn't. It doesn't matter how the fielder ended up impeding him. Runner impeded by fielder without the ball is obstruction.

Great call by one of, if not the best, umpires in the game.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

I don't like this call. I don't think it is realistic to expect the fielder to evaporate after an unsucessful attempting to field a ball.
Furthermore, in my judgement the fielder did not "continue to lie on the ground" since he had only been there for a fraction of a second.
Just because you can call obstruction doesn't mean you should call obstruction.
About the only good thing about this play is that is may serve to educate idiot fans (and announcers) the difference between obstruction and interference. Otherwise, I just don't like this application of this rule.

p.s. no fanboy here since I dislike both teams equally.

I agree 100% and I am a Sox fan however, that is the rule. As I said before, "Did F5 continue to lay there on purpose, probably not. But he did lay there and just about anything short of disappearing was not going to change that call. The rules may not be fair but, dems da rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

I don't like this call.

So you mean you think the rule should be changed? THat might have some merit as a discussion, but the rule as it is was correctly applied.

It's the defense's fault that F5 was lying there, so the defense gets punished.

Don't want to risk OBS? -- get off the bag and get the ball instead of diving for it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The wackos are at it already before the first Red Sox batter was out. McCarver and Buck were complaining that the obstruction needs to be changed so that it is not obstruction if it was not intentional. Would somebody please smack them both upside their heads.

MTD, Sr.