Walk off OBS

[Richvee]

 

 

It will be a credit to the Sox Organization if they all come out and just start talking about another tough situation to be in and that the play was called correctly by the umpires (just like the one at 2nd base was called correctly in the end on the opening game) and it is just one of those things, and you got to keep on going and look to the next game.

Here it is: http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/boston-manager-umpires-were-right-rule-is-bad/

 

This is pretty scary. I hope Torre is just appeasing Farrell with his "We'll take a look at the rule " comment. Every time a manager doesn't like a rule that goes against him they're going to start thinking about changing it? Next thing you know we'll have a "no catch" call because the ball came out when the glove hit the ground, and they'll be reviewing the definition of a catch....saying "the call was right, but the definition of a catch needs to be looked at".........where does it end?? 

[Jimurray]

It will be a credit to the Sox Organization if they all come out and just start talking about another tough situation to be in and that the play was called correctly by the umpires (just like the one at 2nd base was called correctly in the end on the opening game) and it is just one of those things, and you got to keep on going and look to the next game.

Here it is: http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/boston-manager-umpires-were-right-rule-is-bad/

This is pretty scary. I hope Torre is just appeasing Farrell with his "We'll take a look at the rule " comment. Every time a manager doesn't like a rule that goes against him they're going to start thinking about changing it? Next thing you know we'll have a "no catch" call because the ball came out when the glove hit the ground, and they'll be reviewing the definition of a catch....saying "the call was right, but the definition of a catch needs to be looked at".........where does it end??

Makes sense. That rule has been given clarification only at HP when a batter and catcher "untangle" where the umpire should judge intent. Our world might be changing.

[dumbdumb]

 

 

 

It will be a credit to the Sox Organization if they all come out and just start talking about another tough situation to be in and that the play was called correctly by the umpires (just like the one at 2nd base was called correctly in the end on the opening game) and it is just one of those things, and you got to keep on going and look to the next game.

Here it is: http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/boston-manager-umpires-were-right-rule-is-bad/

 

This is pretty scary. I hope Torre is just appeasing Farrell with his "We'll take a look at the rule " comment. Every time a manager doesn't like a rule that goes against him they're going to start thinking about changing it? Next thing you know we'll have a "no catch" call because the ball came out when the glove hit the ground, and they'll be reviewing the definition of a catch....saying "the call was right, but the definition of a catch needs to be looked at".........where does it end?? 

 

No, there is nothing to argue now on this play the way it is written. With the word "intent", they could now argue "intent". Just like they get to argue "intentionally pitch at a batter" as in how do you know his "intent". We will have guys diving all over the ground at balls they could not get to, just to have the runners have to jump over them, and then argue there was no intent to get in the runners way. Like you said, where will this pandora's box end.

 

Amazing how, until Larry Young became the first one, there were no MLB umpires on the rules committee to start with. Seems like there would be more than just 1 MLBU at that.

[mstaylor]

This quote really annoys me,"Best known for a blown call at first base in 2010 that cost Detroit's Armando Galarraga a perfect game" He is best known as one of the best umpires in the business, including being voted as such by the players themselves. Certainly he made a bad call at a bad time but one call should not be the most memorable moment in his career. He is also known for saving the life of a concession worker's life, but that is rarely mentioned. He is one of the most consistent, honorable and knowledgeable  umpires in MLB. 

[Platejob29]

Great call by Joyce for sure and props to the media for acknowledging it as the right call as well. What makes me mad is the comments made by a few of the Boston players about the call. Especially Jake Peavy when he said something along the lines of "it's unfortunate that in the last 3 games there have been 2 calls that just don't seem to be right." Sure he is entitled to his opinion but the way he said it was just aggravating. He said it like he was a puppy that just got kicked.

[zm1283]

 

 

 

I agree with everything the umpires did - great call.by Joyce

 

I have 2 questions:  1) who determines whether or not to impose the penalty? - Joyce made the call; DeMuth was closest to the outcome.  In other words, who determines whether Craig would have made it home "but for" the obstruction?  2) Shouldn't the correct mechanic have been to have DeMuth call Craig out on the tag, then call "Time" and then make the proper obstruction award of home plate?  Which gets me back to question 1 - what if Joyce determined that Craig would have been tagged out despite the obstruction and therefore the obstruction would be nullified?  Which is why I think DeMuth has to make a call as the play plays out, without regard to the obstruction call - which is determined AFTER the play has ended.

1) Sometimes multiple umpires will rule on the obstruction and they will work it out to negate the obstruction.

 

2) No out mechanic. That would present a double call and add confusion. Once the tag was applied, the proper school fundamental mechanic is: "Time!" (Hands raised), then pointing "That's obstruction! You! Score!", or, in this case, point to home plate and "That run scores!".  The excitement of the moment, and being in MLB, Demuth did what he thought was right: "Time!" "Safe!" "That's obstruction!" (pointing to Jim Joyce), "Score that run!" (pointing to home plate).

 

Back to 1): Obstruction rule requires one base beyond the last legally occupied. The runner legally acquired and occupied 3rd base. Since the runner made the attempt to go home, and the umpires ruled that he would have scored had there been no interference, you have to deal with a play being made immediately on an obstructed runner. That's where the umpire waits to see what happens, then if safe, obstruction is disregarded, or if tagged out, it's the "Time! That's obstruction! You, score!" "Score that run!"

 

I don't think that's correct for Type B obstruction.  Ump has to determone what base would have been acquired if not for the obstruction and make that award.  If, for example, Joyce determined (or DeMuth, if its his call -which I'm still not convinced it is) that Craig would not have scored despite the obstruction, Craig could still be called out on the tag at the plate

 

That's the point. They (Demuth and Joyce) both determined that the run would have scored had no obstruction occurred. The runner legally acquired 3rd base, and was advancing towards home, when the obstruction occurred. That is when the one base beyond the last legally occupied comes into play, so the obstruction prevented him from scoring, hence he is awarded home (one base beyond that which he legally occupied.)

 

Had Joyce and Demuth determined that the runner would not of scored, regardless of the obstruction, then the runner is on his own, and liable to be put out.

 

 

......, the runner will then trot to his awarded base and touch it.

 

But what if he doesn't touch it. (that's what I'm getting at).

 

When the ball was coming in to the catcher, DeMuth should have called TIME, and awarded the plate to the runner. That didn't happen. The award should have, IMO, been made by the PU, who had the best angle on the OBS, the ball, and the defender down the line. Instead, he called SAFE. A SAFE call, to me, implies he touched the plate, which he may, or may not have done.

 

Hey, it's just a little thing, that us umpire geeks would notice.

 

Oh, and hats off to Joyce for calling OBS by pointing with his left hand.

 

But once that ball started toward the plate, the PU needs to kill it.

 

The runner doesn't have to touch it because the umpire awarded him home plate by deeming he would have touched it had no obstruction occurred. This deeming relieves the runner of having to physically go back and touch it because, in the umpire's judgment, giving it to the runner negates the obstruction. The umpire scored the run. There can be no appeal for not touching home plate.

 

 

No.  You don't award the runner one base past his last legally occupied base on Type B obstruction.  That is Type A.  You are getting things mixed up.  You can't say "He gets one base past his last legally occupied base" (home), then in the very next sentence say that he is liable to be put out if the OBS didn't keep him from scoring. 

 

As far as Craig not touching home: KyleJT is right about this.  The OBS didn't cause him to miss the plate.  That part of the rule is meant for a runner being obstructed near a base and misses it because he was obstructed by a fielder.  It has nothing to do with the runner missing a base well after the OBS occurs.  That's like saying R1 is obstructed rounding second base by the shortstop and misses second, then misses third on his own on the way to the plate and not allowing the defense to appeal the miss at third because he was obstructed and missed second.  You aren't absolved from touching the next base because you were previously obstructed.

[Larry in TN]

 

It does look like Craig missed the plate.  But that has no bearing on the result.

Not out on abandonment?

 

 

Wouldn't that be an appeal play?  For example, if there were a similar situation where the runner was obstructed at 3B but different only in that the runner reached home without a tag being made because nobody was in position to back up the throw that got past the third-baseman.  If the runner missed the plate he could still be called out on appeal, not out for abandonment.

[dumbdumb]

This quote really annoys me,"Best known for a blown call at first base in 2010 that cost Detroit's Armando Galarraga a perfect game" He is best known as one of the best umpires in the business, including being voted as such by the players themselves. Certainly he made a bad call at a bad time but one call should not be the most memorable moment in his career. He is also known for saving the life of a concession worker's life, but that is rarely mentioned. He is one of the most consistent, honorable and knowledgeable  umpires in MLB. 

Same tag line goes with Barnett with Armbrister situation and Denkinger with the 1st base call, and Froemming with Pappas. Excellent umpires but the memory will be from those calls they made. He gets to join some pretty good company when you really think about it. Living with the Angels. On the other hand. Example: Do you remember Doug Harvey and the Vern Ruhle controversy where Harvey made the initial wrong call on the play. He never got a tag line for that. Doug Harvey, best know for the Vern Ruhle controversy.

[JHSump]

NY Times article on the obstruction call, by Bruce Weber (author of "As They See 'Em: A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires").

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/sports/baseball/world-series-game-3s-decisive-play-why-call-was-obstruction.html

[Mr Umpire]

The call and placement of the runner was correct.  However, the mechanics on DeMuth's end were not.  Is this his time to make up mechanics and see if they catch on?  He has already started with the out call and now, how to handle an OBS situation.

 

His first call should have been "Time" the moment the play was over on the runner.  Then, check with U3 to verify if he feels the runner would have made it without the OBS.  If so, he points to HP and awards the plate.  It is still the runner's responsibility to touch the plate since the OBS did not prevent him from doing so (The HR situation was a completely different issue where the runner was prevented from touching HP).  If appealed, he should have been called out if PU saw the missed base.

 

If, after talking to U3, they felt the runner would have still been out, then PU should then signal out.

 

This is how the PU should have handled the situation.  But, given the magnitude of the game and situation, maybe he got wrapped up in it.  Many of us have done that and may not even realize we have.  We don't have film to go back to and see our mistakes.

[MidAmUmp]

Demuth called the obstruction on his own. Both Joyce and Demuth called it at the same time. There was no.need for him to consult with Joyce before awarding the runner home.

[noumpere]

The call and placement of the runner was correct.  However, the mechanics on DeMuth's end were not.  Is this his time to make up mechanics and see if they catch on?  He has already started with the out call and now, how to handle an OBS situation.

 

His first call should have been "Time" the moment the play was over on the runner.  Then, check with U3 to verify if he feels the runner would have made it without the OBS.  If so, he points to HP and awards the plate.  It is still the runner's responsibility to touch the plate since the OBS did not prevent him from doing so (The HR situation was a completely different issue where the runner was prevented from touching HP).  If appealed, he should have been called out if PU saw the missed base.

 

 

I generally agree with the above, but I think he could have awarded home on his own since he saw the OBS (and maybe even called it.)  But, how many times do they get to "practice" this type of call, so in the moment not being technical perfect on the specific mechanics is forgivable (said by someone who has seen himself on tape doing something completely different from how I would swear I was doing it on the field. lol.)

[JHSump]

NY Times article about the obstruction

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/sports/baseball/in-a-bizarre-finish-the-cardinals-stumble-into-a-victory.html

 

starts with the sentence: "Of all the teams participating in this sloppy World Series, only the one in blue seems at the top of its game."

 

[BigSimonia]

Demuth called the obstruction on his own. Both Joyce and Demuth called it at the same time. There was no.need for him to consult with Joyce before awarding the runner home.

I think DeMuth mirrored Joyce, he didn't  make the call initially - it was Joyce's call.  Since its type B obstruction, DeMuth has to let the play continue.  Craig is tagged at home plate.  What he should have done is rule on the tag (out), call time (at the end of continuous action) and then consulted with the umpire who made the call (Joyce) to determine what award is appropriate to nullify the obstruction.  That procedure would have lead to the same result in this case - but the result could be different in another case - if Craig had tripped on his own while running to home for example.  DeMuth has to wait until continuous action is complete - which means making a ruling on the result of the play - THEN you impose the penalty for obstruction

[mstaylor]

What is supposed to happen is Joyce announces the obstruction, in this case Demuth saw the play, so when there was a tag he should call time, instead he showed safe. Since he saw the obstruction himself there was no reason to get together with JJ, he just awarded home. Now if it had happened while he was watching something else, he would call the out, then JJ makes the award. 

[BigSimonia]

What is supposed to happen is Joyce announces the obstruction, in this case Demuth saw the play, so when there was a tag he should call time, instead he showed safe. Since he saw the obstruction himself there was no reason to get together with JJ, he just awarded home. Now if it had happened while he was watching something else, he would call the out, then JJ makes the award. 

OK - I got it that that's how it went down in this situation.  But your mechanics should be mechanical and not depend on the situation (otherwise they'd be called situationics - or some such).  But what would have happened IF DeMuth (who, remember, is not the one who made the call  (and in 6-man I'm not sure it would be his call to make in any event)) determined that Craig would have made it home safely but for the obstruction but JJ, in the exercise of his judgment, felt that Craig would have been tagged out regardless?  Now, with DeMuth signalling "safe" you have a real problem - which, is why I believe the proper mechanic to be applied is for JJ to call the obstruction, DeMuth to complete the play (and call Craig out on the tag), DeMuth to then call "time" and then to consult with JJ who made the call before making the obstruction award. 

 

In any event it was good umpiring and fun to watch

[Mr Umpire]

 

What is supposed to happen is Joyce announces the obstruction, in this case Demuth saw the play, so when there was a tag he should call time, instead he showed safe. Since he saw the obstruction himself there was no reason to get together with JJ, he just awarded home. Now if it had happened while he was watching something else, he would call the out, then JJ makes the award. 

OK - I got it that that's how it went down in this situation.  But your mechanics should be mechanical and not depend on the situation (otherwise they'd be called situationics - or some such).  But what would have happened IF DeMuth (who, remember, is not the one who made the call  (and in 6-man I'm not sure it would be his call to make in any event)) determined that Craig would have made it home safely but for the obstruction but JJ, in the exercise of his judgment, felt that Craig would have been tagged out regardless?  Now, with DeMuth signalling "safe" you have a real problem - which, is why I believe the proper mechanic to be applied is for JJ to call the obstruction, DeMuth to complete the play (and call Craig out on the tag), DeMuth to then call "time" and then to consult with JJ who made the call before making the obstruction award. 

 

In any event it was good umpiring and fun to watch

 

That is why the umpire should make no call at all.  By doing so, it looks bad.  First, he is out.  Now, he is safe.  What's going on?  Simply call Time.  Make a mental note of what the play was.  Talk to partner to find out if he believes the runner would have made it or not if partner is making the OBS call.  Then, make the call and explain it to the HC.  This way, no team is ready to "come unglued" before anything is determined.  They have to wait to see what the outcome is before they do anything. 

 

Also, OBS/INT is any umpire's call who sees it.  In 6 man or 2 man, doesn't matter.  Even in a 3 or more man crew, something can happen behind an umpire and the rest have to be looking.  U3 could have easily not seen the OBS b/c he is watching to see if the ball goes OOP and may miss the OBS. 

[zm1283]

I'm also of the opinion that DeMuth saw the OBS on his own and awarded Craig home because of that and was not merely mirroring Joyce's call.  If you look at the angle looking up the third base line, DeMuth is looking right at the play.  His only responsibility is the runner coming to the plate, so it makes sense that he is watching the entire play.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

 

What is supposed to happen is Joyce announces the obstruction, in this case Demuth saw the play, so when there was a tag he should call time, instead he showed safe. Since he saw the obstruction himself there was no reason to get together with JJ, he just awarded home. Now if it had happened while he was watching something else, he would call the out, then JJ makes the award. 

OK - I got it that that's how it went down in this situation.  But your mechanics should be mechanical and not depend on the situation (otherwise they'd be called situationics - or some such).  But what would have happened IF DeMuth (who, remember, is not the one who made the call  (and in 6-man I'm not sure it would be his call to make in any event)) determined that Craig would have made it home safely but for the obstruction but JJ, in the exercise of his judgment, felt that Craig would have been tagged out regardless?  Now, with DeMuth signalling "safe" you have a real problem - which, is why I believe the proper mechanic to be applied is for JJ to call the obstruction, DeMuth to complete the play (and call Craig out on the tag), DeMuth to then call "time" and then to consult with JJ who made the call before making the obstruction award. 

 

In any event it was good umpiring and fun to watch

 

That is why the umpire should make no call at all.  By doing so, it looks bad.  First, he is out.  Now, he is safe.  What's going on?  Simply call Time.  Make a mental note of what the play was.  Talk to partner to find out if he believes the runner would have made it or not if partner is making the OBS call.  Then, make the call and explain it to the HC.  This way, no team is ready to "come unglued" before anything is determined.  They have to wait to see what the outcome is before they do anything. 

 

Also, OBS/INT is any umpire's call who sees it.  In 6 man or 2 man, doesn't matter.  Even in a 3 or more man crew, something can happen behind an umpire and the rest have to be looking.  U3 could have easily not seen the OBS b/c he is watching to see if the ball goes OOP and may miss the OBS. 

 

make no call at all... Horse manure....I disagree..

[MidAmUmp]

This is why cops hate talking to witnesses after an accident.  Everyone saw the same thing and are telling different stories.

 

Some are saying DeMuth mirrored Joyce's call.  Others (including me) believe DeMuth called it on his own.

 

[kylejt]

IMO, from what I saw, Joyce made the OBS call, and DeMuth, after seeing where the ball went, the severtiy of the OBS, and when the defensive player got to the loose ball, determined the runner was to get the plate.

 

A perfect mechanic would have been for him to TIME, as the ball was coming in toward the plate. But it all worked out in the end.

[24sdad]

This is why cops hate talking to witnesses after an accident.  Everyone saw the same thing and are telling different stories.

 

Some are saying DeMuth mirrored Joyce's call.  Others (including me) believe DeMuth called it on his own.

 

LOL - and following 32 years (and one year of blissful retirement) I don't have to listen to those different stories anymore!

 

I believe DeMuth also made the call on his own.  I attached a video of Dan Bellino making an obstruction call/award from 2010.  His mechanics left no doubt as to what occurred and why an obviously out R1 was awarded third base.  Following the tag at third, Bellino calls time (in effect "waving off" the obvious out at 3rd), points to the area of the obstruction (F6), then points to third base (award), signals safe and points to third again.  I don't think you needed to know the game of baseball to understand (due to his immediate, emphatic mechanics) what just happened.  

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...tent_id=8725303

[Mr Umpire]

I think DeMuth made the call as well when you see a frame with him and the OBS in it at the same time.  I still think he looked unsure of what to do when it came to him making the award.  Calling the runner safe without calling Time and making the award made the call look bad.  I think he made the award on his own in this case especially with it being so obvious of what happened.

 

Still don't think his mechanics were solid on it though.  And, the Bellino video confirms what I posted earlier.  The only time to make a call is if the calling umpire did not see the OBS call for some reason.

[Texas Manny]

This is why cops hate talking to witnesses after an accident.  Everyone saw the same thing and are telling different stories.

 

Some are saying DeMuth mirrored Joyce's call.  Others (including me) believe DeMuth called it on his own.

 

If Demuth made the obstruction call on his own, he would not of pointed to third base and yelled out to Jim Joyce. Demuth saw Joyce call it and reverberated it, both at the moment it occurred, and again, after he declared the runner safe.

 

I do believe the onus of the award of home plate was on Demuth.

[MidAmUmp]

 

This is why cops hate talking to witnesses after an accident.  Everyone saw the same thing and are telling different stories.

 

Some are saying DeMuth mirrored Joyce's call.  Others (including me) believe DeMuth called it on his own.

 

If Demuth made the obstruction call on his own, he would not of pointed to third base and yelled out to Jim Joyce. Demuth saw Joyce call it and reverberated it, both at the moment it occurred, and again, after he declared the runner safe.

 

I do believe the onus of the award of home plate was on Demuth.

 

When did he point to 3rd base and yell at Jim Joyce?

 

I believe what you saw was he pointed to the spot of the obstruction and called obstruction, then after he called the runner safe, he again pointed back to the spot of the obstruction and announced he had obstruction and was awarding the runner home.

 

I agree with others that his mechanics might have been a little screwy at the plate, but I'd also say he was probably pretty amped up at the fact he was ending a WS game on an obstruction call...so I think he can be forgiven.