MLB Should Be Embarrassed

[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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

What I have found interesting is that not once has the PU called the F3 for Obstruction. It seems that as long as F3 has the Ball in his possession before the Runner gets to him and F3 tags the Runner for the Out, the PU is calling an out and letting the Offensive HC/Manager ask for a Review and letting New York overturn the PU.

MTD, Sr.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What I have found interesting is that not once has the PU called the F3 for Obstruction. It seems that as long as F3 has the Ball in his possession before the Runner gets to him and F3 tags the Runner for the Out, the PU is calling an out and letting the Offensive HC/Manager ask for a Review and letting New York overturn the PU.

MTD, Sr.

Even under softball definitions, if ball arrives before contact, AND the runner isn't hindered by forcing an altered path, then it isn't obstruction. Baseball isn't teaching runners (yet) to obviously alter their path when the catcher blocks; so far just telling them to avoid the malicious collision.

By my standards, if a runner keeps going in the direction and path they were taking all along, they haven't been hindered or impeded until/unless they contact a defensive player before the ball arrives.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What I have found interesting is that not once has the PU called the F3 for Obstruction.

Might I suggest that is because there is no OBS to call.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Might I suggest that is because there is no OBS to call.

What I meant to express is that I have yet to see the PU call the Runner safe when F3 is, per the rules, in violation of 7.13. Every play I have seen is where the PU calls the Runner out and then the Out call is overturned on review. And since I only umpire baseball using NFHS Baseball Rules, and not OBR, the "best" description I could use was to refer to it as a "type" of Obstruction. But I think you understand what I was trying to infer.

MTD, Sr.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by 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?

The best comment from that article:

"If Vin Scully is America's grandpa, then Hawk Harrelson must be its Drunk Uncle."

I'm not really sure what the MLB standard for blocking the plate without the ball is like. I don't think I'd have called obstruction on this play in a game I work. The original play that Mike posted I probably would have had obstruction there.

6 minutes for a review plus having to go back again to review the placement of the runners is a total cluster. Even if almost 48% of plays have been "overturned".

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I'm not really sure what the MLB standard for blocking the plate without the ball is like. I don't think I'd have called obstruction on this play in a game I work.

I spent some time thinking about that for this one before you posted this and came to the opposite conclusion. Here's what I have, just as the fielder is about to receive the ball the runner is going to start his slide. It looks to me like he sees the catcher in front of the plate and instead of sliding at the plate slides toward a spot about a foot back from the plate. (I don't think I'd have gotten that without the slow motion replay, so maybe I agree with you, but seeing the replay...)