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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

Thank you.

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by 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.

I thought the same thing, until Kenny Rosenthal stated that MLB will relook at the rule, at least according to Joe Torre.

I sure hope this isn't the case. But if it is, then Torre needs to be smacked upside the head as well.

[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