Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
ricka56

Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

Recommended Posts

TBS color-man complaining about 7.13(2), but if runner trucked F2, I'll bet he'd insist on invoking 7.13(1) ... STFU

This rule has been in place for at least three years now. Has there ever been an on-field MLB umpire invoked 7.13(2) or have they all been by IR overturn ? Probably a question for Gil. 

https://www.mlb.com/video/culberson-safe-after-review/c-1863504883

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
9 hours ago, ricka56 said:

This rule has been in place for at least three years now. Has there ever been an on-field MLB umpire invoked 7.13(2) or have they all been by IR overturn ? Probably a question for Gil. 

You're right to observe this. The players follow the rule better than the umpires enforce it.

It is possible that this is how MLB wants that provision enforced: no-call on the field, change it on review, which has all the angles and slo-mo.

If not, then I expect this to be a generational change. As new umpires come up through MiLB and receive better training in seeing it and enforcing it, the rule will be better enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, maven said:

It is possible that this is how MLB wants that provision enforced: no-call on the field, change it on review, which has all the angles and slo-mo.

A few years ago at a winter clinic, we had a Q & A with the 3 MLB umpires that were there. I asked the question...

"I noticed there no on field calls on plays at the plate of a runner being called safe at home on catcher obstruction. Is this how MLB wants it? Do they want you to make the safe/out call and then decide if it was catcher obstruction on replay?"

There was an awkward pause as all three looked at each other for a few seconds...then a sheepish grin from one, and he answered..."We call what we see"

Edited to add.....

A few years later and I still don't think there's been obstruction on F2 called 'live" on the field...Maybe @Gil can tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF (and this is just speculation), the umpire calls the runner out, it can easily be reversed on replay.  If the umpire calls the runner safe because of OBS, not so much (expecially if F2 missed the tag and then makes a play on another runner or makes no play on the runner at home because of the call)l

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, noumpere said:

IF (and this is just speculation), the umpire calls the runner out, it can easily be reversed on replay.  If the umpire calls the runner safe because of OBS, not so much (expecially if F2 missed the tag and then makes a play on another runner or makes no play on the runner at home because of the call)l

I agree 100%. I'm just wondering if it's an edict from MLB or a "unwritten rule" among the umpires that we're not calling F2 OBS "live"..Let replay deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh..And one more thing....

Tell us how you really feel Ron Darling. Wish I knew what he had to say when Posey broke his leg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

IF (and this is just speculation), the umpire calls the runner out, it can easily be reversed on replay.  If the umpire calls the runner safe because of OBS, not so much (expecially if F2 missed the tag and then makes a play on another runner or makes no play on the runner at home because of the call)l

Old 7.13(2) seems to be a hybrid of the generic type 1 obstruction rule. But 7.13(2) doesn't address the post violation status (live/dead ball) nor placement of trailing runners. Would a play like this also be considered type 1 obstruction with the ball dead and runners placed to nullify the obstruction ?    

Is an obstruction (or interference) call made on-the-field reviewable ?
Is a NO obstruction (or NO interference) call made on-the-field reviewable ?

Maybe the reason that they don't on-field enforce rule on 7.13(2) is because it wouldn't be reviewable (I speculate)? An IR 1policy change to include this kind of play might fix this issue (if there is one), but would also open the door to making other obstruction (and interference) calls reviewable...which I have fixed feeling about, given all the interference/obstruction plays that I've kicked over the years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Oh..And one more thing....

Tell us how you really feel Ron Darling. Wish I knew what he had to say when Posey broke his leg.

This was not a play with the catcher in peril. This and the NCAA rule were written to prevent unnecessary and violent collisions, primarily to protect catchers. If you read the NCAA rule literally the result would be the same, a violation. Yet, their video rule interps allow a catcher to block the plate with his leg as he receives the ball, the position of the leg not being necessary to receiving the ball. Edited to add: MLB and NCAA need a great legal/umpire, @lawump, mind to revise their rule wording. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

This was not a play with the catcher in peril. This and the NCAA rule were written to prevent unnecessary and violent collisions, primarily to protect catchers. If you read the NCAA rule literally the result would be the same, a violation. Yet, their video rule interps allow a catcher to block the plate with his leg as he receives the ball, the position of the leg not being necessary to receiving the ball. Edited to add: MLB and NCAA need a great legal/umpire, @lawump, mind to revise their rule wording. 

Point taken. Bad comparison.  Still, Darling's rant about the "stupid rule" and "Contreras being penalized for an athletic move that's been legal for 100 years" was way over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

If you read the NCAA rule literally the result would be the same, a violation. Yet, their video rule interps allow a catcher to block the plate with his leg as he receives the ball, the position of the leg not being necessary to receiving the ball.

Are you saying that there is a NCAA training video that would lead one to believe that Contreras' obstruction was legal in a college game ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Point taken. Bad comparison.  Still, Darling's rant about the "stupid rule" and "Contreras being penalized for an athletic move that's been legal for 100 years" was way over the top.

I segued off your post kind of randomly.  I am not defending Darling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

Are you saying that there is a NCAA training video that would lead one to believe that Contreras' obstruction was legal in a college game ? 

Yes, pay $110 to see it.  Allthough some screen grabs or actual videos might exist in threads here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, pay $110 to see it.  Allthough some screen grabs or actual videos might exist in threads here.

I disagree. The NCAA specifically said that catcher's who use body parts (Like the leg in this play) to "redirect" runners can be guilty of obstruction. I think you would have a very good case for obstruction on this play in an NCAA game since Contreras did not have to have his leg where it was to receive the throw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, maven said:

It is possible that this is how MLB wants that provision enforced: no-call on the field, change it on review, which has all the angles and slo-mo.

Not only do I agree with this to the letter, I believe that MLB also wants to protect the officials on the field from the argument(s) ... THAT's why I didn't understand Joe Maddon's argument immediately following.  No matter what, the final call is made in New York, and the Crew Chief cannot weigh in. 

Maddon later explained that he didn't agree that the leg was planted to block the plate without the ball, but rather, Contreras's receiving the ball pulled him into the baseline.

1) I didn't agree ... and no one cares.

2) It's still the decision of New York to overturn the out call ... no matter whether New York ruled that the throw didn't pull him into the lane, or that the runner did in fact touch the plate.

Then Maddon went on to say, "But I will defend the umpires!!!"  OK ... which umpires?  The ones he was screaming at and who had to eject him?  Was he killing the messenger to send New York his own message?  I suspect he just can't stand to watch his bullpen pitch and he wanted out ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zm1283 said:

I disagree. The NCAA specifically said that catcher's who use body parts (Like the leg in this play) to "redirect" runners can be guilty of obstruction. I think you would have a very good case for obstruction on this play in an NCAA game since Contreras did not have to have his leg where it was to receive the throw. 

Have you viewed the video interps for this year?

Share this post


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

A few years later and I still don't think there's been obstruction on F2 called 'live" on the field...Maybe @Gil can tell us.

Correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddon just went off on the field umpires, knowing full well they'd have to eject him, to take the focus off his disastrous decision to pull Quintana early when he knew he had a gassed and ineffective bullpen. Two of the worst pitching management games I've seen all year.

Share this post


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

Have you viewed the video interps for this year?

 

9 hours ago, zm1283 said:

I disagree. The NCAA specifically said that catcher's who use body parts (Like the leg in this play) to "redirect" runners can be guilty of obstruction. I think you would have a very good case for obstruction on this play in an NCAA game since Contreras did not have to have his leg where it was to receive the throw. 

From an earlier thread:

Jimurray

  •  
  • Members
  •  550
  • 3,296 posts

Screen grabs from NCAA rule videos. Both legal as ball is on the way. Catcher can block plate with some body part while the ball is within 60'. That movement of the body part does not have to be a neccessary movement for fielding the ball.

 

legal.jpg

legal2.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom pic from Jimurray is from the NCAA video on 3/21/17.  That particular video proclaims the play 100% legal on the catcher's part and mirrors the Contreras act identically.  So, NCAA, perfectly legal to block plate as they are in act of fielding the ball, whether the ball takes them into the path of the runner, or not.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, humanbackstop19 said:

The bottom pic from Jimurray is from the NCAA video on 3/21/17.  That particular video proclaims the play 100% legal on the catcher's part and mirrors the Contreras act identically.  So, NCAA, perfectly legal to block plate as they are in act of fielding the ball, whether the ball takes them into the path of the runner, or not.  

Is F2 also fair game for getting trucked when blocking the plate without the ball. I think MLB has it right. If you (F2) don't want to wind up going to the hospital, give the runner access when you don't have the ball (only exception if the throw cause you to be in his path).

I'm surprised that the NCAA allows this anymore. But if no MLB umpire can get this obstruction, how can they expect a NCAA guy to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ricka56 said:

Is F2 also fair game for getting trucked when blocking the plate without the ball?

Of course not.  Malicious Contact.  I assume you were being facetious.

3 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I'm surprised that the NCAA allows this anymore. But if no MLB umpire can get this obstruction, how can they expect a NCAA guy to. 

If the Schwarber to Contreras play is truly legal by NCAA standards, then the runner has no options other than to do what Culbertson did and try to reach through the catcher's ankles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, scrounge said:

Maddon just went off on the field umpires, knowing full well they'd have to eject him, to take the focus off his disastrous decision to pull Quintana early when he knew he had a gassed and ineffective bullpen. Two of the worst pitching management games I've seen all year.

not to be too far off topic, but quintana was pretty much toast at that point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gfoley4 said:

not to be too far off topic, but quintana was pretty much toast at that point anyway.

maybe some, but i'd take tired Quintana over Carl The Walker Edwards or John freakin' Lackey anyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

 

From an earlier thread:

Jimurray

  •  
  • Members
  •  550
  • 3,296 posts

Screen grabs from NCAA rule videos. Both legal as ball is on the way. Catcher can block plate with some body part while the ball is within 60'. That movement of the body part does not have to be a neccessary movement for fielding the ball.

 

legal.jpg

legal2.jpg

 

I have seen all of these. There was a video shown in the last couple of years that showed a catcher field a throw with a runner trying to score and stick his left leg out into the runner's path and redirect him off his path to keep him from touching the plate. They talked about it and said it should be obstruction even though he was in the act of fielding a throw. I tried to find it but will keep looking. 

Edit: I don't know how to save NCAA videos off the Arbiter, but I can tell you which one to watch. Go back to videos from 4/5/15. There is one titled "Obstruction at HP New Interp" and it is 5:29 long

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

×