obstruction case play

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

"In my judgment..."

Judgment plays are not protestable. I know you know that.

So why the agita?

I was thinking that awarding the wrong base could be misapplication.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I'm thinking that a mis-application could occur on an overthrow if the umpire claimed that it was only 1 base or the infamous "1 & 1" that we hear about on occasion.

If an umpire explained something like that, I'd say a rule was mis-applied. As such, it could be protestable.

But in the event of obstruction, if the umpire judges what bases get awarded, there are no hard and fast "rules" to apply here. That's not to say that an umpire's judgment couldn't be egregiously wrong, but it is still their judgment.

I'm open to other thoughts on this matter.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I'm thinking that a mis-application could occur on an overthrow if the umpire claimed that it was only 1 base or the infamous "1 & 1" that we hear about on occasion.

If an umpire explained something like that, I'd say a rule was mis-applied. As such, it could be protestable.

But in the event of obstruction, if the umpire judges what bases get awarded, there are no hard and fast "rules" to apply here. That's not to say that an umpire's judgment couldn't be egregiously wrong, but it is still their judgment.

I'm open to other thoughts on this matter.

Suppose the umpired judged that in some play the BR would have gotten third because after the obstruction the ball went over the cutoffs head and rolled all the way to the backstop. This is a misapplication of the rule because the rule requires that the judgment be based on what has happened at the time of obstruction not subsequent playing action.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I should clarify a bit more. My overthrow example was meant to be a ball thrown out of bounds.

Hope that helps.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I should clarify a bit more. My overthrow example was meant to be a ball thrown out of bounds.

Hope that helps.

I understood you. What I was saying is that I also think there are times that an obstruction judgment could be protestable. If the umpire bases it on something that clearly happened after the obstruction (and admits it) that should be corrected on protest.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

I understood you. What I was saying is that I also think there are times that an obstruction judgment could be protestable. If the umpire bases it on something that clearly happened after the obstruction (and admits it) that should be corrected on protest.

I don't believe that properly could be corrected, even. While our interpretation and direction is to make the judgment at the time of the obstruction, the rule states it is umpire judgment (period).