obstruction rule

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored



    Farrell is a stand up kind of guy, he's not going to whine and complain even though it was a bad call.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't know what happened and you are probably happy the sox lost

    [/QUOTE]


    Your comment leads me to believe either you don't know the rule

    or U are still in denial

    farrells comment was kind of dumb

    intent ? who here wants the umpires deciding what the intent is

     



    you are probably happy the sox lost

    so what

    it has nothing to do with understanding and accepting the rules

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    If a runner is tripped by a fielder in the baseline who isn't making a play on the ball, then it has to be obstruction.  obstruction doesn't mean the fielder did anything wrong.  It means the runner was obstructed.



    very well said

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Farrell is a stand up kind of guy, he's not going to whine and complain even though it was a bad call.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't know what happenedand you are probably happy the sox lost

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your comment leads me to believe either you don't know the rule

    or U are still in denial

    farrells comment was kind of dumb

    intent ? who here wants the umpires deciding what the intent is

     



    you are probably happy the sox lost

    so what

    it has nothing to do with understanding and accepting the rules

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, right

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     who here wants the umpires deciding what the intent is

    [/QUOTE]

    Not me, but I don't like it the way it is either.  Do you have a better option?  This one-size-fits-all rule is a lot like certain ladies underwear.  One size DOESN'T fit "all".  Wink

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    The replay shows Middlebrooks feet straight up (from the knees) in the air at a critical juncture.  To me that was clearly intent to obstruct, and the umpire was looking at him when he did it.  No the baserunner did not make contact with Middlebrooks feet, but the intent was there.  Why do I think the feet in the air shows intent?  Nobody trying to get up begins by putting their feet in the air.  The only, repeat only, reason for the feet in the air was to obstruct. 

    As for examples of obstruction, think about all those times guys are rounding a base and the infielder, sometime inadvertently, blocks their path.  Those obstruction calls are in fact made.  The only time the infielder has the right of way is when he is fielding a batted ball.  The rules in general do favor the baserunner.  Thinks of all those hard slides into 2B to prevent a double play.  That to me is obstructing the fielder, but it is rarely called. 

    The Sox were not robbed by that call.  They were robbed by Saltalamacchia making an ill-advised throw to 3B although my son pointed out to me that that particular throw, home to 3B, is what every catcher makes after every bases empty strikeout.  In any case, it was a bad throw and an error.  Nobody was robbed. 

    The robbery would have been if Salty's errant throw, followed by obvious obstruction at 3B, had resulted in getting the out at home plate.  Don't forget, the baserunner actually went down as a result of contact with Middlebrooks. 

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    I've watched this about 1,000,000,002 times in real time, slow motion, and paused the video at certain frames.

    Middlebrooks dives to his left, his feet are already up in the air.

    Craig slides into third and is turning to his left as he slides -> this results in him taking a step back towards second base in an attempt to run home, however he has not moved enough to be out of the base path.

    Meanwhile with Middlebrooks and his legs up in the air, he actually never brought them up, he had them up and brought them half way down.  His legs would have blocked the third base path, so perhaps he was trying to leave an open runway for the runner and didn't want to get called....he looked legitimately puzzled and not knowing what to do. (I think anyone would)

    Meanwhile the Craig in an attempt to go home has both hands on Middlebrooks back while his feet are up, he never really had great balance the entire time until after he got up from his trip but you can CLEARLY see his right foot planted in front of the feet that Middlebrooks had up and his left foot trips him up right on Wills right hip.

     

    Here's the kicker though, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Intent, not intentional, legs up, legs down...whatever.  The play was dead and the fielder was obstructing the runner.

    If anything this play could be used as precedent to possibly tweak the definition of a dead play.  They even mentioned that thought on ESPN the other night....or maybe it was FOX. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Farrell is a stand up kind of guy, he's not going to whine and complain even though it was a bad call.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't know what happenedand you are probably happy the sox lost

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your comment leads me to believe either you don't know the rule

    or U are still in denial

    farrells comment was kind of dumb

    intent ? who here wants the umpires deciding what the intent is

     



    you are probably happy the sox lost

    so what

    it has nothing to do with understanding and accepting the rules

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Normally agree, but that bad throw was backed up the whole way and the runner might well have been out even w/o interference.  If the LF was no where near the play, I'd have felt a lot better about it.

    I agreed with the call, only b/c if it were the other way around I'd want it called interference, too.   They're either going to modify this rule or allow replay on it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    To me this picture isn't evidence that the call was wrong....but rather it is evidence that the rules need to be tweeked. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from patrickford. Show patrickford's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Clearly an outrageous call. The rule itself is not definitive given that Middlebrooks was trying to field the ball, and the fact the runner was arguably out of the basepath, which as I understand it is an out. 
    In any event you don't let a World Series game be decided by a highly debatable call. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    "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."

     

    He had a clear path to home.  

    He took a step towards 2B that caused Middy to become in his way.

    There is room for "judgement" in the rule, as it states in the example given that the fielder "very likely has obstructed the runner." It does not say he definitively has obstructed the runner.

    To me, this implies that the ump must use his judgement and look at all the facts. Middy gave the runner a clear path to home from 3B. He gave him the best path to home by keeping his feet lifted away from the dirt path between 3B and home- the shortest distance between 3B and home. The runner moved towards the fielder not towards home plate at first, so there is where the "judgement" comes into play. 

    Put it this way, what if Middy was 10 feet inside the line, and the runner went way out of his way to collide with him?

    Easy call, right? No obstruction or even runner out for being out of the baseline.

    See, there is judgement involved here.

    When a runner rounds 3B running hard, he often is outside the dirt path to home. he is not "out of the baseline", but how ofter does a runner step in the IF grass on his way to home? Had middy been standing on the chalk with the ball and the runner swerved to avoid a tag and stepped on the grass, he'd be called out. I'm not saying he should have been called out, but the path he chose to run was his choice. The collision was his doing.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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."

     

    He had a clear path to home.  

    He took a step towards 2B that caused Middy to become in his way.

    There is room for "judgement" in the rule, as it states in the example given that the fielder "very likely has obstructed the runner." It does not say he definitively has obstructed the runner.

    To me, this implies that the ump must use his judgement and look at all the facts. Middy gave the runner a clear path to home from 3B. He gave him the best path to home by keeping his feet lifted away from the dirt path between 3B and home- the shortest distance between 3B and home. The runner moved towards the fielder not towards home plate at first, so there is where the "judgement" comes into play. 

    Put it this way, what if Middy was 10 feet inside the line, and the runner went way out of his way to collide with him?

    Easy call, right? No obstruction or even runner out for being out of the baseline.

    See, there is judgement involved here.

    When a runner rounds 3B running hard, he often is outside the dirt path to home. he is not "out of the baseline", but how ofter does a runner step in the IF grass on his way to home? Had middy been standing on the chalk with the ball and the runner swerved to avoid a tag and stepped on the grass, he'd be called out. I'm not saying he should have been called out, but the path he chose to run was his choice. The collision was his doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon - I've been through this with a bunch of my lawyer friends who know as much about baseball as me and you and it took a lot for me to admit that I was wrong when I read into it.

    EVERYTHING you just said....I agree with, however that doesn't change the rule.  Be mad at the rule, not the call.  I looked up the rules yesterday and read through them trying to find something to support the notion that this was the wrong call.

    ....I couldn't. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from patrickford. Show patrickford's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Based on the picture perhaps the ump thought the runner was attempting to return to second base. 
    As for Farrell's comments. Super intelligent. The game was long over and saying anything against the call would only hurt the team. By agreeing with the call he'd stand a good chance of seeing the next close call favor the Sox. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's a  stupidly worded rule that should,  but does not,  take intent into play. Joyce had  no choice but to call obstruction. Craig was in the base path,  which is not defined as the chalk line.

    Middlebrooks did nothing wrong and he got penalized for it because of a badly worded (or interpreted) rule.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    As he was stepping over middy he was not in the base line, look at it again.  He had to swerve a bit so he wouldn't be running on the grass

    [/QUOTE]


    For the gazillionth time, THE RUNNER ESTABLISHES HIS OWN BASELINE, and that doesn't happen until he actually starts running.  The foul line means nothing in this case.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to jete02fan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]Obstruction

    Obstruction (Rule 7.06) is called when the defense hinders the runner’s ability to run the bases. There are two different applications of the rule. One causes an immediate dead ball and the other is delayed dead. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, the ball is immediately dead. If no play is being made the ball is delayed dead. A play, for purposes of this rule is when the ball is being thrown, or is in-flight, heading toward the base to which the runner is heading, an attempted tag, or when the runner is caught in a run-down. The rulebook definition is: 

     

     

    A fake tag is considered obstruction. A fake tag is when the fielder is at a base and takes an action that simulates an attempted tag, which causes the runner to slow down or slide. Faking a catch of a ball while not near a base or the basepath, is not a fake tag. 

    The fielder may stand in the basepath without the ball IF the throw is almost to him, and he needs to move there to catch the ball. This is considered “the act of fielding.” However, he may not actually block access to the base until he has possession of the ball, or starts the act of fielding. Until he has possession, or becomes “in the act of fielding” the ball, he must give the runner some way to get to the base.         

    It is never obstruction when the fielder is in the base path while he is attempting to field a batted ball. Obstruction only applies when the fielder is in the path for no reason, or is in the path prior to being in the act of fielding a throw, or does not have possession of the ball. 

    A fielder's "attempt to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. 

    A fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball.

    Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction. 

    As with interference, obstruction is also a tough judgment call. Contact between the runner and fielder is not necessary to meet the definition. If a runner must slow down or alter his path to avoid a fielder who is not in possession of the ball or "in the act of fielding" a throw, he has been obstructed. 

    If no play is being made on the runner at the time he is obstructed, the play continues. “Time” is not called until all play ends. The tough part comes when the play stops. The umpire will award the runner the base to which the umpire believes he would have reached had he not been obstructed. The play ends and “Time” is called, when the obstructed runner is tagged out, or he ceases to continue to advance, or he gets caught in a run-down, or all action ends. At that time, the umpire may, award bases or not, in order to nullify the obstruction. 

    For example: the batter hits a ball in the gap for what looks like an easy double. No play is being made on him. As he rounds first the fielder is in his path and they collide. The batter stops at first. The umpire will award the runner second base, if he believes; the runner was making a legitimate effort to advance to second base and could have made it, had he not been obstructed. The umpire will protect the runner back to first base, if the runner was not making an attempt for second, but the obstruction hindered his ability to get back to first, before being put out. 

    It does not matter where the obstruction occurs. If a runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes he could have made it to third base, he will be awarded third. The umpire must be the judge. If, in the umpire's judgment, a runner is slowed down at first base, and the umpire judges that the runner had a chance for a triple, but then is thrown out at third base, the out should be nullified because of the obstruction at first. However, if the runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes that only a double is possible, and the runner advances to third and is thrown out; the out would stand. 

    If the runner reaches the base to which the umpire has protected him, and he advances further during the action, and is put out, the out will stand. 

    An immediate dead ball obstruction is called when obstruction occurs while a play is being made on the runner. 

    For example: a runner on first is attempting to reach third on a hit. A fielder obstructs him, between second and third, as the throw from the outfield is heading toward third. This is a play on the runner. The umpire should call "time" when the obstruction occurs and award the runner third base. Another example is a run-down play. It does not matter which way the runner is heading. If he is obstructed while being played upon in a run-down, he is awarded at least one base beyond the last base he held. 

    If a runner is obstructed attempting to get back to first on a pick-off play, the ball is dead and he is awarded second. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's MLB's obstruction rule:

    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: 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



    by rule i could be(and was) called...FTR imo totally unintentional but still callable....tough way to lose

    [/QUOTE]


    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Reminds me of the '75 series.  I think it was joe Morgan who laid down a bad bunt.  he starts for first but then hesitates, blocking Fisk.  If un impeded, Fisk probably throws out the runner going to second.

    in any case, I hope the rest of games are won instead of being lost due to errors.

    [/QUOTE]


    The immortal Ed Armbrister was the bunter. 

     

    As bad a non-call as that was, Fisk still had time to make a good throw to second where he would have gotten the runner; he air-mailed it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     



    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not considered obstruction if a player is making a play on the ball, ala a catcher receiving a throw.  Watch Napoli last night put his foot in front of the base as he's taking the throw, forcing Wong to go around it ever so slightly (which was the deciding factor in being out).

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NOT ONLY WAS HE FIELDING THE BALL WHEN HE WENT DOWN, HE WAS ALSO PUSHED DOWN AGAIN BY THE RUNNER. WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT I WONDER?

    [/QUOTE]

    They "called" it obstruction on Middlebrooks (!!!!) because, upon not fielding the ball (possibly by Craig's interference), he was supposed to immediately vaporize so as not to be on the ground any longer.  I haven't witnessed many vaporizing baseball players.  Craig's second act of obstruction was to push and hold Middlebrooks on the ground.  Then there's the fact, not a opinion, that Craig tripped over Middlebrooks thigh and not on his naturally (and phsiologically) raised lower legs that were by then down again.  The third-base umpire was following the ball and was not looking at the play (again, a fact borne out by tape).  Craig was the obstructor and the Cardinals were handed the game.  The game should have gone to the 10th inning, but of course that never happened.  To call this travesty a "gift" is a gross understatement.  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    To me this picture isn't evidence that the call was wrong....but rather it is evidence that the rules need to be tweeked. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think it is evidence the call was wrong.  Middy is not in the base path.  The runner had plenty of room to run down the base line if he chose.  If you look at the film, as you did, after the runner held middy down to scramble over him the runner had to take a few steps to his right to get back into the base path.  

    If the runner kept going straight he would have run to home on the grass.

    The thing that bothers me the most is that neither ump, 3rd base or home actually saw the play. The third base up was watching the ball go into L field (fox even admitted to this) and the home plate ump was watching the play at home.  The play was already in progress by the time they looked at it with middy on the ground and the runner holding him down.

    The third base up said when he saw the play he went his instinct when he called obstruction.  Instinct, really?  He said the runner was by the chalk, not true.  He should have called all the umps together to get the call right.  Middy was not in the base path, no obstruction.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:

     

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's a  stupidly worded rule that should,  but does not,  take intent into play. Joyce had  no choice but to call obstruction. Craig was in the base path,  which is not defined as the chalk line.

    Middlebrooks did nothing wrong and he got penalized for it because of a badly worded (or interpreted) rule.

     

     




     

    As he was stepping over middy he was not in the base line, look at it again.  He had to swerve a bit so he wouldn't be running on the grass




    For the gazillionth time, THE RUNNER ESTABLISHES HIS OWN BASELINE, and that doesn't happen until he actually starts running.  The foul line means nothing in this case.

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why is a runner called out when he tries to avoid a tag and he is out of the baseline?  And why do they have those neat little white lines that create a path to run in from home to first.  

    If the runner where to continue straight he would have run to home plate on the grass.  Is he allowed to establish a baseline on the grass?  Of course not, so your argument holds no water

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Clearly an outrageous call. The rule itself is not definitive given that Middlebrooks was trying to field the ball, and the fact the runner was arguably out of the basepath, which as I understand it is an out. 
    In any event you don't let a World Series game be decided by a highly debatable call. 

    [/QUOTE]

    +1000

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction? 

    [/QUOTE]

    If a rule is interpreted incorrectly, or in its language establishes an impossibility (a fielder immediately physically disappearing cannot occur in this dimension), the umpires and MLB have the power to overturn a bad rule and/or a call made by reviewing the irrefutable facts on a digital video format.  The league, Mr. Torre, does have the power to do this right now, but it does not possess the will or the courage to say that its umpires were wrong. Video evidence shows Craig as the obstructor (twice), not Middlebrooks, but to avoid further confusion or argument, the only equitable result was to vacate the call and send the game to the 10th inning.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to painter's comment:

    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someoneexplain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction? 

    [/QUOTE]

    If a rule is interpreted incorrectly, or in its language establishes an impossibility (a fielder immediately physically disappearing cannot occur in this dimension), the umpires and MLB have the power to overturn a bad rule and/or a call made by reviewing the irrefutable facts on a digital video format.  The league, Mr. Torre, does have the power to do this right now, but it does not possess the will or the courage to say that its umpires were wrong. Video evidence shows Craig as the obstructor (twice), not Middlebrooks, but to avoid further confusion or argument, the only equitable result was to vacate the call and send the game to the 10th inning.  

    [/QUOTE]

    They should have called the umps together to make the right call

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:



    Then why is a runner called out when he tries to avoid a tag and he is out of the baseline?  And why do they have those neat little white lines that create a path to run in from home to first.

     

     

    Because by the time a tag is being applied, he has established a baseline.  That's when the 3 foot rule comes into play.  The white lines are there to allow a throwing lane to first base from the home plate area.  The batter-runner can run anywhere he wants down the first base line on an outfield base hit for example, or even a grounder to 3rd, 2nd or short.

    [QUOTE]

    If the runner where to continue straight he would have run to home plate on the grass.  Is he allowed to establish a baseline on the grass?  Of course not, so your argument holds no water

    [/QUOTE]


    Watch a runner attempting to score from second sometime as he rounds 3rd.  He's not making 90 degree turns.  They go onto the grass towards the coaches box all the time.  So yes, the baseline can be established on the grass.  No difference on the fair side.  You don't have to like them, but those are the rules.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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."

     

    He had a clear path to home.  

    He took a step towards 2B that caused Middy to become in his way.

    There is room for "judgement" in the rule, as it states in the example given that the fielder "very likely has obstructed the runner." It does not say he definitively has obstructed the runner.

    To me, this implies that the ump must use his judgement and look at all the facts. Middy gave the runner a clear path to home from 3B. He gave him the best path to home by keeping his feet lifted away from the dirt path between 3B and home- the shortest distance between 3B and home. The runner moved towards the fielder not towards home plate at first, so there is where the "judgement" comes into play. 

    Put it this way, what if Middy was 10 feet inside the line, and the runner went way out of his way to collide with him?

    Easy call, right? No obstruction or even runner out for being out of the baseline.

    See, there is judgement involved here.

    When a runner rounds 3B running hard, he often is outside the dirt path to home. he is not "out of the baseline", but how ofter does a runner step in the IF grass on his way to home? Had middy been standing on the chalk with the ball and the runner swerved to avoid a tag and stepped on the grass, he'd be called out. I'm not saying he should have been called out, but the path he chose to run was his choice. The collision was his doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon - I've been through this with a bunch of my lawyer friends who know as much about baseball as me and you and it took a lot for me to admit that I was wrong when I read into it.

    EVERYTHING you just said....I agree with, however that doesn't change the rule.  Be mad at the rule, not the call.  I looked up the rules yesterday and read through them trying to find something to support the notion that this was the wrong call.

    ....I couldn't. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not arguing intent. Intent is not part of the rule.

    I'm arguing that judgement is written into the rule by the word "likely" placed there. The ump could have ruled that the basepath was clear, and the runner initiated the contact by taking a circuiticious route home, instead of the direct route. 

    Where is the line drawn? How far out of the direct line could the runner have gone before the ump said enough is enough?

    There is some judgement involved. The rule did not demand that he award him home plate.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share