WS obstruction

[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.