MLB Should Be Embarrassed

[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.

[MDUmp]

So, why didn't Arizona just appeal Howard for missing home? What would've happened then?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I wouldn't have called it. . . .

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.

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.

Well, I would have called it in NCAA. I had two similar plays in the same game (same catcher). This first one the catcher set in the same place at the plate, goes into "hockey goalie" position before position or ATR, runner slides in for an out (no obstruction). Later in the game, I called obstruction on a less egregious play. The difference: I ruled the runner was hindered in the later but not the former. In the latter, the runner had to adjust due to the catcher's position. That's in the definition (side note: the coaches in the first non-obs were fixated on "blocking the plate", which is not part of the rule).

Even with ATR, I've got the "hinder" at :43-:44, ball past the mound and Howard more than half way. He slows down because he would have trucked the catcher had he kept running.

If this play happens in this weekend's ASA game, I've got my left arm out. And we have to call this in ASA games, especially slow pitch.

As to your positioning comment, if I am catching (and when I did catch or at any other base), I took the throw in front of the plate. That is a much better position and you cannot hinder a runner (nor will you get run over).

Lastly, and to comment on your original statement, I'm not going to use this play or any MLB interpretation to justify and ASA/NFHS/NCAA/ISC/ISF version of obstruction (or any rule). Being hindered is being hindered.

[MD Longhorn]

I don't like the new rule either.

But this is OBS in any softball code. Fielder in the path of the runner without the ball. Runner deviates from their chosen path. Textbook OBS.

Only in ATR codes of baseball is this not OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Well, I would have called it in NCAA. I had two similar plays in the same game (same catcher). This first one the catcher set in the same place at the plate, goes into "hockey goalie" position before position or ATR, runner slides in for an out (no obstruction). Later in the game, I called obstruction on a less egregious play. The difference: I ruled the runner was hindered in the later but not the former. In the latter, the runner had to adjust due to the catcher's position. That's in the definition (side note: the coaches in the first non-obs were fixated on "blocking the plate", which is not part of the rule).

Even with ATR, I've got the "hinder" at :43-:44, ball past the mound and Howard more than half way. He slows down because he would have trucked the catcher had he kept running.

If this play happens in this weekend's ASA game, I've got my left arm out. And we have to call this in ASA games, especially slow pitch.

I NEVER said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. IMO, Howard was not hindered and made no adjustment to his path until the catcher received the ball, so I would not call it.

As to your positioning comment, if I am catching (and when I did catch or at any other base), I took the throw in front of the plate. That is a much better position and you cannot hinder a runner (nor will you get run over).

Of course, in front of the place is the best place for a catcher to set up. But I was quite specific as to why I suggested that position was to defeat the ludicrous parameters of the rule, not to get a better position.

Lastly, and to comment on your original statement, I'm not going to use this play or any MLB interpretation to justify and ASA/NFHS/NCAA/ISC/ISF version of obstruction (or any rule). Being hindered is being hindered.

And AGAIN, never said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. When are people going to start reading the words provided.

[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.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

With the mess that the combination of the collision rule and replay has created I can understand why the manager melted down.

[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

[SethPDX]

And here's your weekly MLB collision rule cluster, this week starring the White Sox and Robin Ventura:

White Sox Boned By Catcher-Blocking-The-Plate Rule, Ventura Loses It

Bonus scene: They had to go back and review where to place the runners after reversing the call. Isn't this new system great?