MLB Should Be Embarrassed
 

Overturned call at plate gives Phillies go-ahead run | MLB.com: News

Even at the 12U level, this is a joke. The runner began checking up halfway to the plate and was already looking for an excuse.

Another example why people who want to cite MLB for case plays in softball should be smacked up alongside their head

Agree.

This is a rule to reduce contact at home plate. If there is no contact, why invoke the rule? (rhetorical question)

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.

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.

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. :D

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

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.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

You answered your question yourself. It's a rule to reduce contact.

This really is simple. MLB doesn't want catchers setting up in the runner's path while they're waiting to receive the throw. The rule goes beyond just obstruction. They want a catcher to position himself such that the runner isn't enticed to bowl him over, such as in front of the plate. If the throw takes the catcher into the runner's path, that's a different situation and the catcher won't be penalized. But if he sets up there, as was the case in the Howard play, he's liable.

The problem is that they've swung the pendulum too far the other way. When is it okay for the catcher to block access to the plate while waiting for the throw? When the runner is 20 feet from home? 30? Halfway? It seems to be getting farther and farther away with some of the replays I've seen.

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.

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.


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

I'm waiting to the runner to be ruled safe because the catcher came out and stood on the 3rd base side of the plate while the runner was getting to 3rd base.

I have watched this replay several times, and this is a close call to me. I'm inclined to say the umpires got it right in this case, but I think that was absolutely the limit of how far it should go. The play looks worse because of Howard appearing to give up. I think there were ways for the runner to attempt to score on this play without nearly stopping on the way in to draw the call. He could have tried actually running around the catcher or he could have tried to slide behind the plate. At that point there is a bigger argument on the Philly's side about blocking the plate, and it would look so much better than the way this play looked.

I'm not for running over the catcher or anything like it. I felt the rules on running over the catcher were long long overdue, but MLB is taking this a bit too far with the way they have let this go.

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.

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

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.

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

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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".

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...)

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.

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.

Oh, yeah. I do and completely agree

I believe this has something to do with the "Old Dog, New Tricks" maxim. The PU sees it as a clear-cut out. For years and years, when the throw beats the runner to the plate by as much as it has in these examples, the runner is dead out. Or, in the case of pro baseball, the runner trucks the catcher. Now we have rule 7.13. Since they can't do that any more, they basically give themselves up and say "WAAHHHHHHH! I was 15 feet from scoring but the catcher was in the waaaaayyyyyyyyyy! Call me safe!!"

It's kind of like men's FP, now that I think about it, but with million-dollar contracts.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...s3rftupmcu.png
Caption: [Giants runner] "Yes!! The catcher has the ball and his toe is on the line! I'm going to be safe on review!"

As I noted elsewhere, like Obamacare, this is ass backwards.

Cannot have a collision without the runner plowing over the catcher, so have the courage to penalized the runner for the act being committed and trust (and force) the umpires to make the OBS calls WHEN OBSTRUCTION OCCURS.

They are placing the demands, restrictions and penalties at the wrong end of the issue.

Not to flog the dead horse yet again, but WGN announcers deem OBR rule 7.13 "BS" multiple times on the air, as well as asking if the recent rule changes in football are going to make it a "little girl's game". Awesome.

Ventura ejected after review | MLB.com

Again, the umpire gets it right, the NY gets it wrong.

It is terrible, absolutely terrible. Again, it is a stupid rule targeting the wrong player.

I have seen that a lot this year with IR. A lot. Matter of fact, IR in baseball has proven to be nothing but a CF.