MLB Should Be Embarrassed

[Linknblue]

Isn't this what the "obstruction" rule is all about? From the runner's point of view........He's running to the plate, sees the catcher directly in front of him between him and the plate, thinks "How can I reach plate? I have to go around him." Starts that "before" the ball gets there, ball gets there and he's already committed himself to the "wide" approach to the plate. He's tagged out because he went wide.........because he's blocked. Ball got there after all this.

I agree 100% with call. It's the rule, live with it.

[Skahtboi]

Have seen this misinterpreted a bunch since the MLB decided to start enforcing it. Much along the lines of the "possession" issue that plagued so many games at the start of this season, and that any umpire worth his salt knew all along was being called wrong by the replay officials, until at last the "new" interpretation of the rule came out. I am sure we will soon see a "new" interpretation of the OBS rule.

However, that doesn't change all of the games whose outcomes were effected by the current interpretation of how the rule should be applied. If you ask me, this whole replay thing in baseball has been a travesty.

[Skahtboi]

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

According to the way the rule is written, it would seem obvious to even the replay officials that what they had on the field was an out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

According to the way the rule is written, it would seem obvious to even the replay officials that what they had on the field was an out.

The call on that play wasn't obstruction. It was a violation of 7.13. See:

MLB, MLBPA Adopt Experimental Rule 7.13 On Home Plate Collisions | MLB.com: News

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

The call on that play wasn't obstruction. It was a violation of 7.13. See:

MLB, MLBPA Adopt Experimental Rule 7.13 On Home Plate Collisions | MLB.com: News

Of course, it wasn't, but it was as that is exactly what the rule claims. The idea was to eliminate the violent collisions at the plate, something that softball has been addressing for years, NOTHING NEW HERE except for baseball which has a penchant for attempting to be play specific while not being specific at all.

Howard was dead out and never should have been sent. The catcher's presence did not prevent Howard from scoring.

I've never agreed with allowing the intentional collisions in baseball and often stated such, but that doesn't mean you change part of the game that circumvents the rules that really have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

What are they going to do next, say a defender cannot be considered in possession of the ball unless he can successfully complete a transfer from the glove to the throwing hand? Oh, wait........

This is the standard, knee-jerk reaction that unnecessarily changes the game when, if there was any intelligence involved, a resolution was available just by looking at NCAA softball.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

a resolution was available just by looking at NCAA softball.

Are you saying that this particular play would not have been (or should be) called obstruction in NCAA softball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Are you saying that this particular play would not have been (or should be) called obstruction in NCAA softball?

I wouldn't have called it. I saw nothing which impeded the runner. According to what has been issued, unless MLB decides to define "attempt to score", the catch can be in violation the moment the runner rounds 3B and we all know how ludicrous that is even though I've seen umpires make that call.

If I'm a MLB manager, I'm going to instruct my catcher to set up on the foul side of the plate and instruct the fielders to through to the RHBB. That means that just about every throw will alleviate the catcher's responsibility of allowing a path for the runner.

You can stop the collisions without changing the game, but I don't think MLB has the courage to have the umpires start dumping players for intentional crashes.

The only reason I reference NCAA is because they still allow for the ATR, which IMO, never needed to be changed in ASA or any other brand.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by youngump

The call on that play wasn't obstruction. It was a violation of 7.13. See:

MLB, MLBPA Adopt Experimental Rule 7.13 On Home Plate Collisions | MLB.com: News

Looking at this: "it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.," it still looks as though the outcome would have been the same, and the call on the field should have stood.

[teebob21]

This rule has created yet another batch of controversy.
Mike Redmond is right: Call that cost Marlins a win was ‘an absolute joke’ | For The Win

[MD Longhorn]

Makes no sense why they didn't simply choose to enforce the rules that already exist. 7.13 is absurd.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

This rule has created yet another batch of controversy.
Mike Redmond is right: Call that cost Marlins a win was ‘an absolute joke’ | For The Win

THE THROW TOOK THE CATCHER INTO THE PATH OF THE RUNNER! It had to, he was set up exactly where I told him to set up. That means the "collision" rule should not apply.

Another perfect play by the players, correct call by the umpires on the field, and a ****ing joke of a ruling from MLB

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

According to the way the rule is written, it would seem obvious to even the replay officials that what they had on the field was an out.

That was my point earlier, but I hadn't had my coffee yet. I'm no OBR expert, but Rule 2 covers obstruction and specifically states the player has the right to go catch a thrown ball. If they wanted to misapply this rule in this situation, fine. The crew and the replay officials can eat that protest.

Rule 7.13 is titled "Collisions at Home Plate". I've seen the play now. It was far closer than I'd imagined. Howard could either truck the catcher or go around. I don't like it, but I have to admit that looks like the right rule application based on the way the rule is written. I still disagree with the call though. I have a different judgment call based on the part of the rule I have bolded, and Out #3.

OFFICIAL BASEBALL RULE 7.13

COLLISIONS AT HOME PLATE

A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the Umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the Umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the Umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13 Comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner's buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.

Also, I'm going to do my best to make this my last comment here in the softball forum on a baseball rule at a level I will never work.