Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Radie 88

Revisiting That Cardinals-Red Sox WS Game That Ended on the Obstruction Call

9 posts in this topic

This one is probably pretty infamous around discussions between umpires, so most of you probably know it by heart, but here's the video anyway: 

My father was an umpire, so I've always had a good handle on the rules and basic umpiring stuff, but it wasn't until I started calling games myself that I've begun to take notice of the really finer points: mechanics, timing and advanced positioning.. Those kinds of things. 

I've been watching a lot of famous plays to see how these things were handled by the respective umpires. This one had me a bit confused.

But not for anything to do with what occurred at 3rd base... 

My understanding (and I could be wrong, causing myself the confusion) is that on an obstruction call, the umpire making the call indicates that obstruction happened but that as a play moves to another base and another umpire, that 2nd umpire has to first rule on what he saw at his base, then factor in the results of the obstruction.

So looking at this play again, shouldn't the PU have called the runner out on the tag and THEN awarded the run on the obstruction call? Unless I'm missing something, he seems to have noticed the obstruction call by the 3U and called the play safe based on that. 

Whats the proper way to call this? If he did this correctly, I'm pretty shocked as I can imagine any number of things can go south quickly. 

Also, I know that the results of an obstruction call is at the umpires discretion on what would have happened had the obstruction not occurred, but on this play, which umpire decides that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

A soon as a tag is made on the obstructed runner you call time and make awards (if any)

 

MLBUM:  However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that
runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded
because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is
tagged out. The umpire shall then impose such penalties that will nullify the obstruction

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Radie said:

My understanding (and I could be wrong, causing myself the confusion) is that on an obstruction call, the umpire making the call indicates that obstruction happened but that as a play moves to another base and another umpire, that 2nd umpire has to first rule on what he saw at his base, then factor in the results of the obstruction.

So looking at this play again, shouldn't the PU have called the runner out on the tag and THEN awarded the run on the obstruction call? Unless I'm missing something, he seems to have noticed the obstruction call by the 3U and called the play safe based on that. 

 

Your understanding  / assumption in the first paragraph seems based on umpires working in isolation with (almost) no knowledge of what the other umpire might have called and no in-play verbal or non-verbal communication.

 

As you point out in the second paragraph, that's not true.  And a quick glance at U3 can communicate what the "award" will be.  No need to call out and then appear to reverse (or be "overruled") the call.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Demuth (PU) saw and called the obstruction as well (at the 1:37 mark and at the 1:54 you can see him do it), so he made his call of safe at the plate based on his observation of obstruction at 3rd base.

I'll agree with the OP in that Demuth signaled "safe" before signaling "time", but that's a pretty trivial point in the whole thing. Bottom of the 9th in the World Series and I'm ending a game on an obstruction?!?! Yeah - I'd have probably gotten the order of my signals wrong, too.

And FWIW - this moment more than probably any other made me proud to be an umpire. Joyce and Demuth were both faced with a call that an umpire - even one calling 162 games a year - might see once or twice a year. And it happened in the bottom of the 9th in the World Series, and they were ALL OVER IT.

Super-mega-props to those guys.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched that game live on TV I was screaming, "Obstruction! Obstruction"!

Yes, as a Yankee fan I always root against the Sox.

Good call by Joyce.

Not nit picking, but the PU should have called time before awarding home on the obs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Not nit picking, but the PU should have called time before awarding home on the obs.

I don't mean to be rude, but....

I'm not racist, but...

I'm not nitpicking, but...

Yes, you are exactly nitpicking. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't mean to be rude, but....

I'm not racist, but...

I'm not nitpicking, but...

Yes, you are exactly nitpicking. :)

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

What?

Meaning that, typically speaking, when you hear someone say "I'm not xxxx, but" the very next thing they say is exactly what they claim they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By umpirebrianc
      The 6th Annual East Texas Umpire Clinic is coming Jan 27-29.  Learn from a 2016 World Series Umpire!!! Marvin Hudson is on our staff and will be here again in 2017.  
      Only $115 right now for Fri-Sun - check out www.umpireclinics.com for all the details.  Don't miss an incredible opportunity to learn from incredible instructors at the top of their game to help you better your game.
      Questions email me - umpireclinics@gmail.com
      Brian Chinn
    • By sd181612
      I'm watching the game and that fly towards the backstop is hit. Rizzo bounces it off of his hand then off of his glove and catches it. Isn't that supposed to be foul?
    • By Thunderheads
      Ok, .... please read carefully and hear me out .... 
      I'm a HS umpire and that's all I'll ever be, partly because that's what I enjoy and that's my inspiration.   I don't have the time or schedule to do College ball, so what I do I'm perfectly happy with.  And, to add ....  I do a decent job.
      Now, ... I'll NEVER be at the level of the guys on the field right now, and 99.9999999% of all of us on the site won't either, however.  IF I ever got to do a game at the level of a plate in the world series, I certainly wouldn't have my hands in my pockets most of the night.  I feel Guccione did a fine job last night, no doubt, and he probably accomplished a dream last night by doing his first World Series plate job.   But, did anyone else notice this?  I know it was pretty 'raw' in Cleveland last night but would gloves be a good alternative?   I just think the hands in pockets thing looks as if you don't care.
      Am I off base here, or was this noticed by anyone else?
      Again, I'm not bashing Guccione per-say, but how does that 'look' to others?  Make sense?
      I posted something similar on Facebook and you'd think that I called Guccione's mother a nasty name!  Geez  
      Anyhow, thoughts?