WS obstruction

[dileonardoja]

For all the naysayers all F5 had to do to avoid the obstruction was catch and hold on to the ball. Then he can be in the baseline all he wants. Oh it was a bad throw you say....so I guess that's the runners fault? The defense had there chance to make the play and blew it.

Now if Tim and Joe can just shut up and stop talking about it. Tim in his infinite wisdom has just declared the rule needs to be revisited and intent has to become part of it as if an umpires job isn't hard enough already.

[yankeesfan]

Would it matter on this play if the runner gets thrown out by 30 feet at the plate. Is is automatically given home because he made the attempt at home or could he be called out at that point?

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

No sir, I don't feel the rule needs to be changed. I do not, however, feel it was correctly applied in this case. I feel the phrase everybody seems to be pointing to ("continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner") was not met in this case, unless you feel less than a second of inactivity constitutes a continuing act. I don't think it does.

The fielder was lying where he was because he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. To me this was a train wreck (or fender bender), not OBS.

[EsqUmp]

If obstruction required intent, you can basically delete the entire rule.

[yankeesfan]

Just a reminder if someone could please answer post #32 please. Thanks

[constable]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan

Would it matter on this play if the runner gets thrown out by 30 feet at the plate. Is is automatically given home because he made the attempt at home or could he be called out at that point?

In this type of obstruction it is a judgement call as to whether or not he could have scored. Once that is considered, placement of the runners is determined.

Hope this helps.

[Fan10]

Suppose that the throw from LF to home beats the runner by 20 feet. The runner then gets caught in a run down and after a few throws back and forth, he is tagged out in a rundown.

We know that he would not have scored, so an award of home is not an option. If you are protecting him to 3B, is he now out because he advanced past the base to which he was entitled?

[hog]

Going back to the OP. I, too, noticed that the runner never touched home plate. However, no appeal was ever made. Maybe it's because the PU botched the mechanics and called him safe, rather than calling time and awarding the base.

Originally Posted by hog

Maybe it's because the PU botched the mechanics and called him safe, rather than calling time and awarding the base.

Getting the call right and selling it are more important than using the correct mechanics. They way Demuth and Joyce communicated and sold the call was excellent and left no mistake as to what their call was.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by hog

Going back to the OP. I, too, noticed that the runner never touched home plate. However, no appeal was ever made. Maybe it's because the PU botched the mechanics and called him safe, rather than calling time and awarding the base.

I think his right foot touches the plate or at least comes close enough so that a viewer of the video can't tell. See 1:24 and 1:58 of the video linked in the OP. DeMuth may have judged that he did touch the plate just after the tag.

Either way, the runner has an indefinite amount of time to reach and touch the plate, since it is an award, and I haven't seen any videos that show whether the runner touched the plate in the following scrum.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Getting the call right and selling it are more important than using the correct mechanics. They way Demuth and Joyce communicated and sold the call was excellent and left no mistake as to what their call was.

It worked out ok in this case, but if Joyce had only protected the runner to 3rd base, DeMuth's improper 'safe' mechanic would not have helped at all.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Fan10

Suppose that the throw from LF to home beats the runner by 20 feet. The runner then gets caught in a run down and after a few throws back and forth, he is tagged out in a rundown.

We know that he would not have scored, so an award of home is not an option. If you are protecting him to 3B, is he now out because he advanced past the base to which he was entitled?

In your play, the out would stand -- just as it would if he was thrown out by 20 feet and kept going for home.

If the obstruction occurred while a play was being made on the runner, then the ball would have been dead immediately and any awards made -- with a minimum of 1 base to the obstructed runner.

This was about as easy as it gets, imo.

(And let me add that the HS rule is different. Most umpires know that, but we have several fans reading this.)

[scrounge]

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.

Make a better throw or catch the ball if you want the right to stand in the basepath. Didn't do that? Well then you've forfeited your right to be in the way, even for a millisecond. Easy call.

Do you have the ball? Nope. Are you about to field the ball? Nope. Did you impede the runner in any way? Yep. We're done here.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Fan10

Suppose that the throw from LF to home beats the runner by 20 feet. The runner then gets caught in a run down and after a few throws back and forth, he is tagged out in a rundown.

We know that he would not have scored, so an award of home is not an option. If you are protecting him to 3B, is he now out because he advanced past the base to which he was entitled?

Obstruction was determined for This Play, at the time of the infraction, which means he was protected to a one base award beyond the runners last legally touched base. He was entitled to Home at this point and that "nullifis the act of obstruction" as stated in 7.06b.

OBR 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.

Your scenario is relative to a runner going beyond the base to which he is protected. 7.06b Comment.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Obstruction was determined for This Play, at the time of the infraction, which means he was protected to a one base award beyond the runners last legally touched base. He was entitled to Home at this point and that "nullifis the act of obstruction" as stated in 7.06b.

the minimum one base award is only for Type A obstruction. There is no minimum for Type B. You could change the world series play a bit and have the out at the plate stand.