OBS call
 

Well, both umpires had the call. 3BU did it correctly, PU, IMO, had it right, but not the proper mechanics, even for MLB

Play is here

BTW, this is also a great example as to why you discuss issue with one team representative and that is it. You ended up with 6 umpires providing personal explanations for 20 people. Should have discussed it with the manager and left the field

Do you think the leg-raising is what decided the call?

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.

What are the proper mechanics for MLB?

Very funny.

Rita

But accurate.

Same as most softball. When the obstructed runner is tagged out the ball is dead, the umpire is to call time and then award the base.

DeMuth just gave a safe signal, then pointed at third base.

While the mechanic was incorrect, what he did probably did a better job than the correct mechanics would have of indicating what the call was to the millions watching (as well as to the talking heads).

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.

To my knowledge, the only difference between softball and baseball in this mechanic is that softball umpires declare a "dead ball", then administer the effect of the obstruction; in baseball, they call "time", to make it a dead ball, then administer the effect.

Now, the effects may be different; but the mechanic is if the obstructed runner is apparently out when protected, the umpire is to kill the play (dead ball or time called), NOT declare out nor safe on the initial play.

Agreed!

I disagree ... I think he muddied things by calling safe when he was not (yet) safe. I still don't think Craig has touched home plate. Perhaps he does if the mechanics are done right ... and perhaps if he still doesn't, Boston appeals correctly if the mechanics are done right... but we'll never know.

Also - PU did not know what award 3BU had in mind - so he's not the one that awards home.

None of the fans watching (well, few of the fans watching) even know the difference between interference and obstruction, let alone the correct mechanic or what the rule says the umpire should do. They don't care, either, given the on-going discussion among the fans / media, where the argument that the fielder was just doing what he was supposed to do, etc., etc... (latest being Mike Golic on ESPN's Mike and Mike this morning).

What the PU did was communicate "runner safe due to the call my partner made at 3rd." Should he have done that? Well, by the book (or even by sound umpiring standards), no. Were there things that could have happened (e.g. Boston appealing) that would have resulted in a big mess? Absolutely.

But, no one watching was confused as to what the call was or why. JMO, of course.

I haven't heard a single fan, commentator, talking head, sports show host, etc., who was confused about what the call was.

Whereas killing the ball and conferring with the 3rd base umpire on the award.... really.... how do you think THAT would have worked out in the fan-base, media, etc.?

My point was that the way he did it better communicated to the fans what was going on, and I'll add to that: it also better sold the call than the correct mechanics would have.

Again, JMO.

OK AGREE, but this forum is also about improving ourselves as umpires and knowing our mechanics. :cool:

My leg-raising question still stands. :rolleyes:

Found it interesting that in 4 games of 14&U, 12&U on Saturday; there was only one OBS. :)

Not to cut the PU any slack, because he is working at a much higher level with much more on the line than anything I have ever officiated, but I heard yesterday that the was the first obstruction call in MLB since 2004. It obviously isn't a mechanic they use very often.

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.

Not at all true. Not even close.

Nope. There is no intent required in the rule.

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.

I was just repeating.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Do you think the leg-raising is what decided the call?

Do you see "intent" anywhere in my question? :confused:

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)
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.

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.

It was the first time a game has ended on an obstruction call since 2004.

Dead on!

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.