WS obstruction

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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....

[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.

[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.