OBS call

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

At no point did the PU indicate OBS. And MLB clearly states that when there is a play on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall call "time" with both hand overhead. This isn't an interpretation, it isn't part of any "given" mechanics, the rule dictates the umpire shall act in this manner and instead, it looked like a vertically- challenged umpire trying to point over everyone toward the spot the OBS occurred and the time of the call and when he should have been declaring "time".

IOW, the umpire is to kill the play, then make the ruling. In this case, when two umpire make a call on the same runner, they should get together to ensure they are on the same page with the same call.

If you go watch the replays you will see Demuth (PU) pointing at 3B just after the obstruction and as the runner was headed home.

There was no play being made on the obstructed runner. At the time of the obstruction the ball was loose in LF.

In this case (OBR rule 7.06(b )) play continues and ends when playing action ceases. At that time the umpires may award whatever they feel is necessary to negate the obstruction. This can be nothing if they think the runner would have been out anyhow and range to awarding the run as they did here.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

In this case (OBR rule 7.06(b )) play continues and ends when playing action ceases.

Be careful. It also ends when the obstructed runner is put out, and the out is going to get nullifed due to the obstruction.

If this had been the game-tying run, for example, the play would have been killed when the tag was made, and there would not have been an opportunity for the defense to play on the batter-runner.

But I know you know that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If you go watch the replays you will see Demuth (PU) pointing at 3B just after the obstruction and as the runner was headed home.

And pointing toward a general area that is not of the umpire's general assignment from the other side of the next closest base and everyone is supposed to know what that means? Seems to me the U3 saw the OBS in his general area of responsibility and either pointed with left hand or extended it for a moment. That I immediately recognized, as probably did many, if not most folks familiar with the game.

There was no play being made on the obstructed runner. At the time of the obstruction the ball was loose in LF. In this case (OBR rule 7.06(b )) play continues and ends when playing action ceases.

I know this is going to come down to semantics, but...

MLB rule 7.06(a) states that when a play is made on the OBS runner, the umpire shall call time. Nowhere does it state that such a play be made by the defender who caused the OBS. To me, when the catcher tags the OBS runner, that is your play which ends action.

At that time the umpires may award whatever they feel is necessary to negate the obstruction. This can be nothing if they think the runner would have been out anyhow and range to awarding the run as they did here.

But if you want to stick with 7.06(a), that states "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And pointing toward a general area that is not of the umpire's general assignment from the other side of the next closest base and everyone is supposed to know what that means? Seems to me the U3 saw the OBS in his general area of responsibility and either pointed with left hand or extended it for a moment. That I immediately recognized, as probably did many, if not most folks familiar with the game.



I know this is going to come down to semantics, but...

MLB rule 7.06(a) states that when a play is made on the OBS runner, the umpire shall call time. Nowhere does it state that such a play be made by the defender who caused the OBS. To me, when the catcher tags the OBS runner, that is your play which ends action.



But if you want to stick with 7.06(a), that states "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

As I understand it, 7.06(a) applies if a play is being made on the obstructed runner at the time of the obstruction. That is where the 1 base award beyond the last base touched comes into play. (Picture a pick off at first - or any base)

(a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed
before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without
liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment,
if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at
least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction.
Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for
obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out.
Rule 7.06(a) Comment: When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall
signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls “Time,” with both hands overhead. The ball is
immediately dead when this signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flight before the
obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners are to be awarded such bases on wild throws as they
would have been awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where a runner was trapped
between second and third and obstructed by the third baseman going into third base while the throw is
in flight from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout the obstructed runner is to be awarded
home base. Any other runners on base in this situation would also be awarded two bases from the base
they last legally touched before obstruction was called.
(b)

The situation the other night was "Type B" where the runner was obstructed before any play was being made on him at the time of the obstruction.

(b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no
further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such
penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.
Rule 7.06(b) Comment: Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an
obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been
awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a
judgment call.
NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of
the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only
when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a
steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession
of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter
shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.
64

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

As I understand it, 7.06(a) applies if a play is being made on the obstructed runner at the time of the obstruction. That is where the 1 base award beyond the last base touched comes into play. (Picture a pick off at first - or any base)


The situation the other night was "Type B" where the runner was obstructed before any play was being made on him at the time of the obstruction.

Hugo, I do understand that. I could have been a little clearer as I was referring to the wording of 7.06 in general which is why I noted it probably come down to semantics. Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hugo, I do understand that. I could have been a little clearer as I was referring to the wording of 7.06 in general which is why I noted it probably come down to semantics. Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

I figured that, just figured I'd throw in my 2 cents worth to clarify it for anyone who was less familiar with the baseball rule.
Turns out having the ability to cut and paste the whole thing made it more like contributing a $1.45 than 2 cents.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

The reason behind splitting the two in pro baseball rules is to provide for a harsher penalty against the defense should they obstruct a runner during a play.

For example, a runner caught in a rundown between third and home is obstructed as he attempts to dive back into third base. If it was one catch-all obstruction rule as it is in other organizations, the award would be third base, since that's the base he would have achieved minus the obstruction. But the MLB rule mandates an award of home for the runner.

The real question is, Why the need for a harsher penalty? I dunno. Maybe the rulesmakers felt that without it, it would lead to unwanted shenanigans by the defense. Suppose when a pitcher throws to first base to hold the runner, the first baseman intentionally positioning himself in the runner's path back to the bag to prevent him from accessing it. Calling obstruction and putting the runner safely on first doesn't prevent the first baseman from continuing to do this until, by chance, they do throw a runner out just before the hindrance takes place. Awarding the runner second base after the first obstruction violation puts an immediate end to this.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The reason behind splitting the two in pro baseball rules is to provide for a harsher penalty against the defense should they obstruct a runner during a play.

For example, a runner caught in a rundown between third and home is obstructed as he attempts to dive back into third base. If it was one catch-all obstruction rule as it is in other organizations, the award would be third base, since that's the base he would have achieved minus the obstruction. But the MLB rule mandates an award of home for the runner.

The real question is, Why the need for a harsher penalty? I dunno. Maybe the rulesmakers felt that without it, it would lead to unwanted shenanigans by the defense. Suppose when a pitcher throws to first base to hold the runner, the first baseman intentionally positioning himself in the runner's path back to the bag to prevent him from accessing it. Calling obstruction and putting the runner safely on first doesn't prevent the first baseman from continuing to do this until, by chance, they do throw a runner out just before the hindrance takes place. Awarding the runner second base after the first obstruction violation puts an immediate end to this.

Good theory, Manny....


NFHS tried a similar tactic with their softball rules several years back...the penalty for obstruction was to advance the runner at least one base. Didn't matter where the obstruction was, which direction the runner was heading, the degree of the severity of the obstruction, etc. If obstruction was called, the runner got the next base automatically.

What happened was that umpires became reluctant to call obstruction since the penalty was so harsh. Basically, a defender had to knock somebody over in order for obstruction to be called.