Ohio High School State Title Game - OBS Call

[Umpteenth]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

We don't see it, but I wonder if U3 signaled the OBS right away, or just called time after he realized the runner isn't scoring.

IMO, placement at 3rd would have been correct, even without the advantage of replay.

In the video from the first post, at 00:16, 3U is properly signalling DDB:

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

In the video from the first post, at 00:16, 3U is properly signalling DDB:

Thank you

[chapmaja]

Here is a link to another video of the obstruction. There is no way I can justify the call of awarding home plate given that we know the location of the ball, the fielder with the ball, the runner and the obstruction on this play.


https://youtu.be/55o6ppkU9mE

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is a link to another video of the obstruction. There is no way I can justify the call of awarding home plate given that we know the location of the ball, the fielder with the ball, the runner and the obstruction on this play.

I agree. At the time of the OBS, there was no way the runner would have reached home safely had the OBS not occurred

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is a link to another video of the obstruction. There is no way I can justify the call of awarding home plate given that we know the location of the ball, the fielder with the ball, the runner and the obstruction on this play. ...

You are absolutely wrong...

(...for trying to debate the fans and other assorted flotsam on YouTube! ... That was you, right?)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are absolutely wrong...

(...for trying to debate the fans and other assorted flotsam on YouTube! ... That was you, right?)

I will neither confirm nor deny that statement. I will say whoever that was got a reminder of the reality of the statement "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

[Umpire@1]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is a link to another video of the obstruction. There is no way I can justify the call of awarding home plate given that we know the location of the ball, the fielder with the ball, the runner and the obstruction on this play.


https://youtu.be/55o6ppkU9mE

I agree this is a much better video that shows what happened.
But after looking at the video, I have some other comments.
In an earlier post someone commented that the plate umpire was his USA assigner. I noticed he had a very poor heel/toe and his GPA was way out of position. So if he is a USA assignor, he is not practicing what he preaches very well. Wonder what Mr. Fick would have to say about the whole situation.
Something else I noticed that the plate umpire did a very good job of keeping his eye on the ball, but IMO once he seen that the ball was loose, and about to be gathered up by the catcher, he should have been stealing a glance towards 3 base to see what was developing as there were other runners on base.
I am sure this won't be popular post, but just my observations.

[Umpire@1]

And after watching this video from the angle it is taken, I agree, 3rd base is where the runner should have been placed.
But give kudos to the crew. They got together and made the call they felt was correct.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

[...]
In an earlier post someone commented that the plate umpire was his USA assigner. I noticed he had a very poor heel/toe and his GPA was way out of position. [...]

Re: heel-toe. We all know that we're a little bit different on the left vs right. I wouldn't read too much into that.

[BretMan]

Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.

This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).

Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.

The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe it's the camera angle.

Yeah, wide angle/fisheye lenses drastically distort distance. I thought the same thing about the plate stance (looked pretty square on the video), but decided not to comment.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened.

Luckily it doesn't happen often, but I'm very torn on this topic. When we call OBS, we're supposed to decide what will happen assuming the event we just called OBS on didn't happen. That's a tough decision AT THAT MOMENT, even for a confirmed psychic. That said, I award bases the way the rule says....where do I think the runner would have gotten absent the OBS. I won't lie, the results of the primary play/throw (NOT the plays & throws that follow) definitely help me arrive at that decision. Example from this high school season: BR hits a ground ball to RF. Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3. (I judged this as "the primary play". Absent the obstruction, BR would have reached 1B.) F9 airmails the throw to the infield, and BR advances to 2B before retreating to 1B. An infielder retrieves the ball from the errant throw, and tosses it to F3, where our BR is put out between 1B and 2B. I rule an OUT.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.

This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).

Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.

The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!

There is a big problem with using the post-obstruction evidence in a situation like this. The post-obstruction evidenced completely changed the play.

Had the obstruction not occurred, the runner likely rounds 3b by a step or 2, then retreats back, seeing that the catcher already has the ball in her hand and she has absolutely no chance to score on the play.

The only reason that she attempted to score was that when she was obstructed, the resulting trip and fall left her far enough off 3b for the defense to throw behind her instead of chasing her back to 3rd.

In this case, the penalty (awarding home), did not fit the crime (obstruction at 3rd base). The offensive team already gets the benefit of her not being able to be put out between the bases she was obstructed at, which is the prescribed penalty for the crime. It also, by virtue of that rule, allows her the opportunity to try for home in the continuation of the play, without the liability to be put out.

To me what this play really boiled down to was not a crew that was in agreement with awarding her home plate, but a 3rd base umpire (who uses a 4 umpire crew for high school softball?) that was insistent that she be awarded home and 3 other umpires who, when asked, now have to justify an incorrect ruling to save their partner's tail from his decision making.

Now, as for the quote in blue. She wasn't trying to go back to third because she was picking herself up off the ground. When she did pick herself up, she was caught between third and home and initially does attempt to go back, but sees the throw from F2 go over her head to the defender at third (F5 I would presume).