WS obstruction

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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.

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

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

90% of this is completely irrelevant. This call is absolutely cut and dried. Call the rule. Don't make up your own holes in the rule where you can judge things that are not part of the rule.

[David M]

If Craig did/had missed the plate (and went back to the dugout and the defense stayed in fair territory) is this appealable or is it an awarded base with no touch necessary?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David M

If Craig did/had missed the plate (and went back to the dugout and the defense stayed in fair territory) is this appealable or is it an awarded base with no touch necessary?

Most think the former; a few think the "whatever penalties" wording in part (b) allows the touch itself to be awarded.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This call is absolutely cut and dried. if you disagree you don't belong on the field.

One might say it was "textbook," no?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

In FED, you're correct. Not so with NCAA anymore or OBR. The NCAA's OBS rule matches that of OBR now.

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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.

Add me to the list of people on here that think you're dead wrong.

Originally Posted by lawump

I'm not trying to act like I'm on a high horse...but, I can't believe how many posters on this thread on this board (which I have a high regard for) seem to be having issues with this play (or the umpires' ruling on this play).

This was not a hard call for an experienced umpire to make (I don't mean that as an insult to newer umpires on this board). Watching it live on TV even I (a mere former MiLB umpire) yelled, "obstruction" right away.

This is classic "Type B" obstruction.

For those who feel it should not be obstruction because F5 couldn't have gotten out of the way: once F5 misses the throw he has to "disappear" (not my word, Jeff Nelson's (chief rules instructor) word at umpire school). It doesn't matter that he can't actually disappear (physics are a bitch, sometimes)...the rules require that he must. Once he is no longer in the act of fielding the ball...he instantaneously has no right to be there, period. It sucks, but 'dem the breaks.

For those who got hung up on a belief that R2 should have automatically been awarded home plate: In OBR, when obstruction occurs you immediately have to determine whether or not the defense was making a play on the runner at the time of the obstruction. What is a "play"? A play for purposes of obstruction is (1) a tag or attempted tag of a runner, (2) tag or attempted tag of a base (in an attempt to retire a runner), (3) a throw from one fielder to another fielder (in an attempt to retire a runner) or (4) a rundown.

At the time R2 made contact with the prone F5, was any of those 4 possible plays occurring? Heck no! The ball was rolling down the left field line. Hence, the ball is NOT immediately dead...and we have Type "B" (and not Type "A") obstruction. Hence, the umpire must let the play continue. The umpire is to decide how many steps the obstruction cost him. If he is thrown out by that many steps (or fewer steps), then the umpire will protect the runner to that base (award the runner that base). In Type "B" obstruction, if the defense makes a play on the obstructed runner, and the umpire decides at the time they finally make a play on that runner that he is going to protect that runner, then the ball becomes dead at that moment (when the defense makes a play on the protected runner) and the umpire will award any base(s) that will nullify the obstruction.

For those who felt that no obstruction should be called because R2 did not run in a straight line from third base to home plate: First, a runner cannot be "out of the baseline" unless a tag attempt is being made against him. Clearly that did not occur here. To ignore the obstruction, the relevant question to be asked is: "did the runner intentionally move toward the fielder in attempt to make contact with the fielder to draw an obstruction call?"

I have watched this video at least 10 times. There is absolutely no way that R2 intentionally ran toward F5 in an attempt to initiate contact in order to draw an obstruction call. R2 has every right (once he saw the ball get past F5 and down the left field line) to turn around "inside" (in fair territory) and head toward home plate. He doesn't have to "stay on the foul line" (as some idiot posters on some newspaper websites claim) or "run in foul territory". In watching the video, there is absolutely no way that anyone could convince me (even for a second) that R2 ran out of his way solely for the purpose of trying to initiate contact with F5 to draw an obstruction call. Unless he did, this whole discussion of where R2 actually ran when traveling from third to home is moot.

For an example of what can go wrong when the umpires forget to kill the ball in Type "B" obstruction when the defense eventually makes a play on the obstructed runner that the umpires decide is still protected, do a google search of "White Sox, Cubs, obstruction, 2007".

For an example of what happens to a runner in Type "B" obstruction when the defense subsequently makes a play on him and the umpires determine that he is no longer protected, go and review Game 3 of the 2003 ALDS between Boston and Oakland.

This is the best write up I've seen on this situation as of yet. This is exactly correct.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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.

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

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

This is so unbelievably wrong I don't even know where to start.

Even if Craig made a little contact (Which I don't think he made much contact at all), it is totally irrelevant. He slid straight into third base and the somewhat poor throw pulled Middlebrooks off the base and onto the ground. If the throw is better or if he catches it, we're not having this discussion. Craig did nothing wrong and Middlebrooks obstructed him.

I'm with lawump. I can not believe there are umpires with experience above rec ball that don't think this was obstruction. It is baffling honestly.

[PeteBooth]

Your aforementioned statement is one of the main reasons I liked it when Fox had Steve Palermo in the booth. No need to listen to Buck and McCarver

If Palermo was in the booth he would have explained things perfectly clear (whether you liked the rule or not)

Pete Booth

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

90% of this is completely irrelevant. This call is absolutely cut and dried. Call the rule. Don't make up your own holes in the rule where you can judge things that are not part of the rule.

Irrelevant isn't a word. Try non-relevant next time. I see a fielder knocked to the ground by a runner. I know the rule, and how it reads. It is of my opinion that Middlebrooks did nothing to intentionally or unintentionally obstruct Craig from advancing to home....

[Steven Tyler]

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.

I'm thinking if Demuth is calling obstruction, why isn't he killing the play, and awarding home? He should have just made the call at home, and Joyce would be the one awarding the plate to Craig. I guess he just got caught up in the excitement.

Wasn't it Demuth working the plate at the All Star game in St. Louis, and with a hard hit foul ball down the left field line, he had his hands up touching his shoulders like a 20 second time out in the NBA? The call wasn't even his to make in the first place, much less use a basketball mechanic.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.



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.

So what's the difference in what I said, and what you said you wouldn't call? Remember we have no definition, rule, or authoritative interpretations to back up what up your decision would be.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is so unbelievably wrong I don't even know where to start.

Even if Craig made a little contact (Which I don't think he made much contact at all), it is totally irrelevant. He slid straight into third base and the somewhat poor throw pulled Middlebrooks off the base and onto the ground. If the throw is better or if he catches it, we're not having this discussion. Craig did nothing wrong and Middlebrooks obstructed him.

I'm with lawump. I can not believe there are umpires with experience above rec ball that don't think this was obstruction. It is baffling honestly.

Since you didn't see it, I'll explain it to you. Craig slid, and helped take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. It wasn't a dive for the ball by Middlebrooks. He was reaching for the ball...............actually Craig used Middlebrooks as support to get up, and when trying to go home he barely caught his foot on Middlebrooks back..............get real. Maybe obstruction in your book, but I don't ever recall seeing a play like the one that took place being call obstruction.

Instead of agreeing with the status quo, I would like to hear your take of the play.

The only point I'm trying to make different is that Middlebrooks was on the ground because Craig help get him there. The slide was clean. I just saw two players doing what they were supposed to do.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Irrelevant isn't a word. Try non-relevant next time. I see a fielder knocked to the ground by a runner. I know the rule, and how it reads. It is of my opinion that Middlebrooks did nothing to intentionally or unintentionally obstruct Craig from advancing to home.....I don't believe you belong as moderator if I don't belong on the field, but then my opinion doesn't count for that does it.

Uh....irrelevant most certainly is a word. How on earth can you conclude that Middlebrooks did nothing to obstruct Craig? So being directly in front of him and causing him to trip is nothing? I can only conclude you don't want to see it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Wasn't it Demuth working the plate at the All Star game in St. Louis, and with a hard hit foul ball down the left field line, he had his hands up touching his shoulders like a 20 second time out in the NBA? The call wasn't even his to make in the first place, much less use a basketball mechanic.

That's the "FOUL, no wait I take that back!" mechanic. I know because I've used it myself.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The only point I'm trying to make different is that Middlebrooks was on the ground because Craig help get him there. The slide was clean. I just saw two players doing what they were supposed to do.

Not completely a true statement. Middlebrook was on the ground because he dove for the ball AND incidental contact with Craig in what can be described as a clean slide.

I also saw "two players doing what they were supposed to do" however, as an official it is your job to interpret if what happened is in accordance with the rules and if, or if not, rule accordingly, again in conformance with the rules.

Incidental contact relevant to "two players doing what they were supposed to do" is not treated the same way within the rulebook. And although we may not like that, it is our job to know the differences and rule accordingly.

Did Middlebrook "continue" to lay on the ground purposely? Although he can't disappear, the rules suggest that he has to. Unlike a batter in the box who is allowed to complete what he is doing then is given time to disappear.

Trying to officiate to what you think is fair and in the rules is not always what is really in the rules. But those are the rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Irrelevant isn't a word.

Yes, it is.

Perhaps you are thinking of "irregardless"