|
Tue Oct 15, 2002, 08:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anyone else see this play at 3rd Monday night? Santiago rounds 3rd base and the St. Louis F-5 gets in his way (sort of) as Santiago rounds 3rd base (he actually stepped over the base, as though he was running to the dugout). I could not see if the base coach was holding him up or waving him home, but there were 2 outs with the P coming up. I think he was going home. The announcers confused obstruction with interference, and even if they had the term correct their analysis was terrible.
Then the MLB umpire supervisor came on and tried to clear up the rule. He then stated/implied that the rule might need revising and that they needed to get an umpire on the rules committee. The rule was odd -- it seemed to revolve around whether a play actually was made on the runner. He then said the the umpire correctly left the obstructed runner at 3rd because the umpires are supposed to assume a good relay throw from the OF and a good throw by the relay man and catch by the catcher. Even if the runner was going home and it was going to be close, since there was no play made he kept Santiago at 3rd base. Very odd reasoning. 
|
|
Tue Oct 15, 2002, 10:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Wed Oct 16, 2002, 07:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tap,
There are two types of obstruction under OBR. Type A (7.06(a)) or Type B (7.06(b)). The short difference is in Type A a play is being made on the obstructed runner and in Type B the ball is somewhere else on the field. Type A obstruction results in a immediate dead ball and penalties applied with the minimun award of at least one advance base to the obstructed runner. Type B is treated similar to the obstruction rule in softball, in which playing action is allowed to end, and the umpire is to "impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgement will nullify the act of obstruction." Aparently U3 in the play at hand either felt that Santiago was not making a legitimate attempt to advance (ie he was only rounding 3rd) or that even absent the obstruction he would not have made home. I think he felt he was only rounding. Other experienced umpires has postulated that if Santiago had attempted to score he would have been protected to home. Roger Greene
|
|
Thu Oct 17, 2002, 05:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger:
I think that you made the proper analysis of the situation. I was watching the play in question, and felt that there was no legitimate attempt by Santiago to head for home. Scott
|
|
Thu Oct 17, 2002, 08:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Even if Santiago had made a legitimate attempt at home............there was NO play being made on him at the time of the obstruction...............Therefore by MLB rules.........(type A & B).......the play would have been allowed to continue..........and if he would have been thrown out at the plate, the out would have most likely stood..............
Unlike ASA, we could not nullify the obstruction and place him back on third................ I like the SB (ASA) version much better because it makes our job multitudes easier............a runner cannot be put out betweeen bases they were obstructed............we don't feel they would have made it Home.......and were put out there...........we kill the play and put them back on third........ I just realized I do not have my PDF version of the BB rule on my new computer (trying to rememdy that......grin)......so I cannot give authoritative opinion to back up my assumptions............so you will just have to go on my recolections.................. Joel
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
