MLB Should Be Embarrassed

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

[teebob21]

Agree.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Agree.

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

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.

[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.