Got anything #2

SRW

wadeintothem

an db out overruling likely obs...
Not enough blood or broken bones for an ejection..

Stu Clary

The umpire could use a pair of pants that fit.

MichaelVA2000

Hard to tell from the pics but there could have been obstruction. The picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride coming to the plate. F2 was clearly blocking the plate as she was about to receive the ball. Also hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 and whether or not the runner touched the plate.

Great angle showing the PU without a hat.

Steve M

Probably obstruction, but that's likely to be superceded by the runner staying on her feet and not avoiding the collision.
And PU who doesn't win anything from the fashion police.

3afan

Steve M wrote
... the runner staying on her feet and not avoiding the collision.
...

nothing wrong with that if no malicious contact occurs (in umps judgement)

wadeintothem

3afan wrote
nothing wrong with that if no malicious contact occurs (in umps judgement)

besides crash interference.. there is nothing wrong with it if no malicious contact...

bigsig

Looks to me that F2 had the ball, so no OBS, she can block the plate. Doesn't look like a collision. Looks like the runner avoided it.
IMHO just an out.

whiskers_ump

bigsig wrote
Looks to me that F2 had the ball, so no OBS, she can block the plate. Doesn't look like a collision. Looks like the runner avoided it.
IMHO just an out.

bigsig, Look at frame 1. What is the big yellow thing just arriving to F2?

CecilOne

I want the see the other guy's photos.

(A) "picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride ". If she did, clearly OBS.
(B) "hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 ". If so, and not (A), out.
(C) If safe, appeal for missing plate.

(D) Ump needs cap, shirt, shorter pants, shoe polish, better position.

BretMan

He does have a hat- I'll give him that. Unfortunately, it's not on his head. You can see it stuck in the harness of his mask.

bigsig

whiskers_ump wrote
bigsig, Look at frame 1. What is the big yellow thing just arriving to F2?

Thanks! I didn't see it. "Hey Blue, wake up you're missing a great game!".

But in all 4 photos I don't see the runner alter or react so I would not rule OBS.

Chess Ref

CecilOne wrote
I want the see the other guy's photos.

(A) "picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride ". If she did, clearly OBS.
(B) "hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 ". If so, and not (A), out.
(C) If safe, appeal for missing plate.

(D) Ump needs cap, shirt, shorter pants, shoe polish, better position.

I'll give him a break on the shoe polish. Might be a pretty dusty field. Also I had my hat get stuck last week. First time in a long time it happened . SO he gets a minor break from me on the hat...

MGKBLUE

I agree that this is likely nothing as it would appear the the runner did not show anything that would indicate that she was hindered or impended until F2 had possession of the ball and applied the possible tag.

The only time I would be OBS would be if the runner, slowed down because F2 was blocking the plate and such change in speed cannot be determined from the photographs.

Dakota

CecilOne wrote
...Ump needs cap, shirt, shorter pants, shoe polish,...

At least he's not wearing shorts... 🙄

Dakota

MGKBLUE wrote
I agree that this is likely nothing as it would appear the the runner did not show anything that would indicate that she was hindered or impended until F2 had possession of the ball and applied the possible tag.

The only time I would be OBS would be if the runner, slowed down because F2 was blocking the plate and such change in speed cannot be determined from the photographs.

My thoughts, too. It is not obstruction merely because of F2's position, although the PU should be thinking and looking for it based on F2's position. We can't judge OBS based on these photos, but it likely WAS obstruction, and it was NOT likely crash interference. I base this on the runner's position in #2, where she is apparently trying to protect herself, which makes it likely she also slowed down. But, we can't know that from the pics.

What was actually called?

bkbjones

Dakota wrote
What was actually called?

The game on account of rain. Welcome to Seattle!

WestMichBlue

Dakota wrote
but it likely WAS obstruction, and it was NOT likely crash interference. I base this on the runner's position in #2, where she is apparently trying to protect herself, which makes it likely she also slowed down.

Second the motion!

I don't think there is any question that F2 stepped into the runner's path without the ball. Should be a clear obstruction call.

The only issue (which cannot be resolved by these pics) is did she step in too late for runner to react and avoid the collison. If that is true, than no interference call and award the runner home.

WMB

Steve M

Dakota wrote
At least he's not wearing shorts... :rolleyes:

Tom,
This might be more information than I needed to know:cool:

qcumpire

First of all he's out of position. He needs to get on the other side of the plate.

As for a possible obstruction call, it's tough to tell with the still pictures. Just her being in the baseline without the ball doesn't make it obstruction. If the runner hesitated or changed her path any I've got obstruction. If not, I've got an out on the tag.