WS obstruction

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich

Since both umpires called obstruction and it's a play coming to DeMuth's base (plate), I am perfectly comfortable with DeMuth deciding the effect of the obstruction.

DeMuth's mechanic, IMO, is far better than any book mechanic. It was clear, concise, and explained the reason for the safe decision IMMEDIATELY.

If both umpires had made the OBS call, I would agree with you (although I think it would be just as clear if DeMuth had called time when the tag was applied and awarded the plate on the OBS). But Hirschbeck's remarks at the press conference indicated (in so many words) it was Joyce's call and DeMuth was mirroring it.

Assuming that is the case (and I know that is a critical assumption), DeMuth awarded a base for a violation he did not call. What if Joyce judged that the runner would be out at the plate absent the OBS? As Bob has said, you don't have to change the WS play much to get there.

[Adam]

Just trying to imagine the outcry if they hadn't called it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

If both umpires had made the OBS call, I would agree with you (although I think it would be just as clear if DeMuth had called time when the tag was applied and awarded the plate on the OBS). But Hirschbeck's remarks at the press conference indicated (in so many words) it was Joyce's call and DeMuth was mirroring it.

Assuming that is the case (and I know that is a critical assumption), DeMuth awarded a base for a violation he did not call. What if Joyce judged that the runner would be out at the plate absent the OBS? As Bob has said, you don't have to change the WS play much to get there.

As the plate umpire with everything in front of me, I'm making that decision pretty much right away as long as I know there's obstruction involved.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich

As the plate umpire with everything in front of me, I'm making that decision pretty much right away as long as I know there's obstruction involved.

If you didn't call the OBS, then the base award is not your decision.

[EsqUmp]

It would have been preferable for DeMuth to call "time," especially since the runner was thrown out. At that time, the ball is dead. Once the ball became dead, it would have been better either (a) Joyce to point at home plate and award the runner home or (b) get together with DeMuth, provided Joyce needed any additional information.

I thought that some of the baseball gurus would have brought up the scramble-unscramble philosophy to obstruction/interference.

[Mountaincoach]

Originally Posted by Adam

Just trying to imagine the outcry if they hadn't called it.

Exactly. They'd still be talking about it, and the Red Sox could have possibly won the series last night. The play happened. The correct call was made. Move on. Continue to love the game.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Assuming that is the case (and I know that is a critical assumption), DeMuth awarded a base for a violation he did not call. What if Joyce judged that the runner would be out at the plate absent the OBS? As Bob has said, you don't have to change the WS play much to get there.

Sooo, you're the PU, and you see your U2 partner rule OBS on R1 as R1 heads for second on a hit-n-run in the gap. As play continues, there's a throw to home to make a play on R1 attempting to score, and in the meantime, the BR rounds second and heads for third. Are you suggesting that U2 should take his eyes off the BR and potentially miss the touch of second base to judge on the play at R1 at home, and then make the long-distance call?

One reason why umpires point and announce the obstruction violation is to let other partners know what's going on. If I see my partner do that, I'm tracking the hindered runner and making the call at my base. And if I was the umpire making the obstruction call, I would intervene only if I see my partner rule the runner out on a close play.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I thought that some of the baseball gurus would have brought up the scramble-unscramble philosophy to obstruction/interference.

Nobody brought it up because it doesn't apply. F5 wasn't attempting to retrieve a loose ball in his vicinity; it was well away from the scrum. So there is no valid argument to excuse the fielder.

[yankeesfan]

i might of missed it on this thread but can someone give the NFHS ruling on this exact play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan

i might of missed it on this thread but can someone give the NFHS ruling on this exact play?

Since the OBS was after R2 reached third, R3 is awarded home. The ball is "delayed dead"

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sooo, you're the PU, and you see your U2 partner rule OBS on R1 as R1 heads for second on a hit-n-run in the gap. As play continues, there's a throw to home to make a play on R1 attempting to score, and in the meantime, the BR rounds second and heads for third. Are you suggesting that U2 should take his eyes off the BR and potentially miss the touch of second base to judge on the play at R1 at home, and then make the long-distance call?

Of course not. The OBS call does not affect the umpires' individual responsibilities.

One reason why umpires point and announce the obstruction violation is to let other partners know what's going on. If I see my partner do that, I'm tracking the hindered runner and making the call at my base. And if I was the umpire making the obstruction call, I would intervene only if I see my partner rule the runner out on a close play.

The MLBUM is clear that the umpire who calls the type (b) OBS is responsible for doing whatever nullifies the OBS. When the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching his award base, and the safe/out call belongs to an umpire other than the one who called the OBS, the mechanic becomes awkward.

In the WS game, it was obvious that the runner was going to be awarded the plate, so DeMuth's mechanics worked just fine. But change things just a little bit - say U3 judged that the runner was going back to the base and would not have scored absent the obstruction.

U3 can't communicate his judgment (regarding the award) to the PU before the play at the plate happens, so the PU is in a quandary - he doesn't know if the ball is live or dead when the obstructed runner is tagged. His only choice (and it's by the book) is to bang the runner out on the tag. If applicable, U3 can then call time and make the award. If not, the ball stays live and it's all good (except for the ensuing shitstorm).

[Steven Tyler]

I have a problem with the call because Craig's slide took Middlebrooks feet out from under him.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I have a problem with the call because Craig's slide took Middlebrooks feet out from under him.

First, I don't think he did. Second, even if he did it was without question a legal slide into the base. Third, what's that have to do with anything?

Middlebrooks, in the baseline without the ball and not making a play, impeding a runner. Easy call.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by scrounge

First, I don't think he did. Second, even if he did it was without question a legal slide into the base. Third, what's that have to do with anything?

Middlebrooks, in the baseline without the ball and not making a play, impeding a runner. Easy call.

It's has a lot to do with everything. I never said the slide was illegal. Craig did help take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. Middlebrooks wouldn't be on the ground if that didn't happen.

So I guess you would call obstruction on a steal attempt where the runner goes in hard causing the fielder to go down on top of the runner. Everybody starts to untangle from there. Looks like the same to me. Middlebrooks wasn't holding him down.

Middlebrooks was attempting to catch the ball when contact was made. In my book, Joyce only saw Middlebrooks lying on the ground, and took it from there.

Heck, wasn't it Demuth that made the bad call at 2B that was obvious to most everyone in the park except him.

Here, You can daable check.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/s...olliday-102613

I fail to see where the call was so cut, and dried.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Craig did help take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. Middlebrooks wouldn't be on the ground if that didn't happen.

Doesn't matter. There is nothing in the obstruction definition, rule, or authoritative interpretations that excuse a fielder for hindering a runner because the runner legally contacted the fielder and knocked him to the ground.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So I guess you would call obstruction on a steal attempt where the runner goes in hard causing the fielder to go down on top of the runner. Everybody starts to untangle from there.

If the ball got past the fielder and is out in the outfield, and I judge that the fielder hinders the runner's attempt to get up by staying on him, you betcha. But if I feel the fiedler immediately tried to get off the runner, then I would probably judge that there was no hindrance.