Multiple Obstructions

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Am I the only person who noticed the umpire in the OP judged 3B until talking to the PU? According to the rule quoted by Tom, there is no more discussion available here....

No, you're not, but so what? And where does the rule I quoted say anything about discussion?

Am I the only one to notice that the OP specifically states that the judgment of 3B on the second obstruction was based only on where the runner was at the time of the obstruction? Each OBS judgment was made as a stand-alone judgment.

The concept of where the runner would have been had the first obstruction not occurred is what is missing from the second judgment.

That the conversation with the PU allowed him to think it through is not to be casually thrown out. The two independent judgments are in his head until the base awards are announced, and just as an umpire is allowed to think through the action on any other call before verbalizing, he is allowed to think through the action on this one.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, you're not, but so what? And where does the rule I quoted say anything about discussion?

Where did I say it did?

Am I the only one to notice that the OP specifically states that the judgment of 3B on the second obstruction was based only on where the runner was at the time of the obstruction? Each OBS judgment was made as a stand-alone judgment.

The concept of where the runner would have been had the first obstruction not occurred is what is missing from the second judgment.

No, it is not.

BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is, again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.


The OP specifically noted that AFTER the second OBS, the BU STILL had 3B as the award. There is the judgment made by the ruling umpire as instructed in the rule cited.

That the conversation with the PU allowed him to think it through is not to be casually thrown out. The two independent judgments are in his head until the base awards are announced, and just as an umpire is allowed to think through the action on any other call before verbalizing, he is allowed to think through the action on this one.

Hell, have you heard some of things umpires come up with "justifying" certain rulings? Give me two minutes and I'll talk some umpires into forfeiting a game so we can go watch the NHL playoffs.

And if after the 2nd OBS the BU thought the award should be home, no problem. HOWEVER, that isn't what the OP presented. Its not my play, your play or anyone elses to call, it is the BU and when he saw the 2nd OBS, he thought 3B.

This isn't a tote board where you just keep adding things up like Trapper McIntyre.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did I say it did?

How about here:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...According to the rule quoted by Tom, there is no more discussion available here....

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. My turn to emphasize...

BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is,again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.

Based on "this OBS alone"... i.e. not considering the previous obstruction. The effect of the previous obstruction is not rendered moot by a second violation by the same team. That the calling umpire did not take this into consideration at the time of the second obstruction does not mean he cannot reconsider and take it into account later before making the base award. The effect of both obstructions is to be removed for the proper base award. The umpire is not locked down merely because he did not consider that at the instant of the second obstruction.

Theorizing that the PU "talked him into" something is adding illegitimacy to the OP that is not present as described.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did I say it did?




No, it is not.

BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is, again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.


The OP specifically noted that AFTER the second OBS, the BU STILL had 3B as the award. There is the judgment made by the ruling umpire as instructed in the rule cited.



Hell, have you heard some of things umpires come up with "justifying" certain rulings? Give me two minutes and I'll talk some umpires into forfeiting a game so we can go watch the NHL playoffs.

And if after the 2nd OBS the BU thought the award should be home, no problem. HOWEVER, that isn't what the OP presented. Its not my play, your play or anyone elses to call, it is the BU and when he saw the 2nd OBS, he thought 3B.

This isn't a tote board where you just keep adding things up like Trapper McIntyre.

It seems the two of you are talking past each other.

Just to clarify, to me I see Irish saying that you have the runner only to 3rd because that's what the BU ruled and you don't want him changing that by talking to the PU.

And I see Dakota saying, the BU should have awarded home in his initial ruling because his initial ruling did not include the effect of all the obstruction. And he doesn't really care about the conversation.

Is that an accurate representation of what you're both saying?

I gather Irish that you may be additionally saying that only the current obstruction should be considered for the current award but you don't seem to be addressing the why of that position.
________
Volcano Vaporizers

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Just to clarify, to me I see Irish saying that you have the runner only to 3rd because that's what the BU ruled and you don't want him changing that by talking to the PU.

I was offered a scenario and ask for my thoughts. Based solely on the presentation of the BU, I offered them and got an argument.

I don't care if he talks to the PU. I'm saying that if the BU thinks she should have scored, he would have been thinking home, not 3B. Whether you like it or not, you need to address the play as a whole. You don't take portions and add them all together at the end of the play.

When a BR is OBS at 1B and the throw from F6 enters DBT, do you award the BR first on the OBS and then two more on the overthrow? When a player walks and the ball goes through the backstop, do you add one and one and put the player on 2B? Of course, not.

I wonder if the same would have happened if the second OBS was on the 1B side of 2B?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

- generating some lively discussion.

hard to believe !