The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fremont, NH
Posts: 1,352
I'm one of those that is wondering if the runner ever did touch the plate. But when the umpire called him safe when he clearly was tagged out before reaching home was initially confusing.

I suspected OBS was going to be the call but watching it live the first time, it wasn't obvious to me. All I focused on was yet another throw from the plate area sailing off into never land.

BTW, Nava did a great job of backing up that throw, getting to the ball, and making a great throw himself. None of which will be remembered.

This is certainly going down as one of the more unconventional World Series. Not sure if it will ever qualify as a classic.
__________________
Ted
USA & NFHS Softball
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBlue View Post
I heard yesterday that the was the first obstruction call in MLB since 2004. .
Not at all true. Not even close.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Do you think the leg-raising is what decided the call?
Nope. There is no intent required in the rule.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 741
Send a message via Yahoo to MNBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
Not at all true. Not even close.
I was just repeating.
__________________
Mark

NFHS, NCAA, NAFA
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Anton Chigurh - "No Country for Old Men"
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:34pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:42pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu View Post
This is certainly going down as one of the more unconventional World Series. Not sure if it will ever qualify as a classic.
It has been one of the more eventful World Series. The overturn of the Out call at second base in Game 1, the two errors on one play in Game 2, the obstruction call in Game 3, the pickoff to end a game in Game 4. It seems like every game is providing something you don't see every day.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Do you think the leg-raising is what decided the call?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
Nope. There is no intent required in the rule.
Do you see "intent" anywhere in my question?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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)
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
(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
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoTafurst View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:21pm
hog hog is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBlue View Post
...I heard yesterday that the was the first obstruction call in MLB since 2004.
It was the first time a game has ended on an obstruction call since 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJ1960 View Post
The way I am hearing virtually everyone who will comment for the record explain the play, if Middlebrooks had been killed on the play and his body was tripped over by Craig, the call is the same.
Dead on!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:20pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State Playoffs - Call or No Call Blindolbat Basketball 33 Sun Mar 10, 2013 08:19am
When the obvious call isn't the right call Don Mueller Baseball 28 Mon Aug 20, 2007 01:46am
ASA OBS call then no call leads to ejection DaveASA/FED Softball 28 Mon Jul 12, 2004 03:52pm
To call or not to call foul ball DaveASA/FED Softball 11 Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:47am
More Pacers/Pistons call/no call OverAndBack Basketball 36 Thu Jun 03, 2004 07:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1