WS obstruction

[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

[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.

[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

[MD Longhorn]

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.

You completely misunderstand obstruction then. It's really very simple - with a few exceptions that don't apply here, a fielder cannot impede the runner's progress. Period. At all. All the umpire needs to see here is that the runner's progress was impeded by a fielder who didn't have the ball. Done. Obstruction. No thought required. No judgement needed.

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Just because you can call obstruction doesn't mean you should call obstruction.

What?? You're kidding, right? What other calls can we make that we shouldn't make, in your opinion?

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What?? You're kidding, right? What other calls can we make that we shouldn't make, in your opinion?

Excessive pine tar on the handle of the bat.