Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

OBS at Home Plate then Malicious Contact

Recommended Posts

Old catchers, I was one, back in the 70's were taught to hang onto their masks if there was a possibility of a play at the plate so they could put the mask back on.  When I was in HS, it was still legal to run over the catcher.  But, we could also chew tobacco, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
9 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

Yup.   Especially the modern full mask/helmet.  If an NHL goalie can pick up 100+ mph slapshots, that get deflected, from less than 40 feet away, without taking off their mask, a catcher can pick up foul balls and throws to the plate.   Taking off the mask is often time consuming and distracting and can often be the difference between making a catch or not, whereas leaving the mask on is very rarely the cause of missing a catch.   Even for balls straight up it's usually better to just leave it on.

Pretty crazy that they wear it while catching a pitch, huh?  I'm 100% in agreement on them keeping the helmet on.  The batter and runners are required to keep their helmets on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 9:40 AM, Tborze said:

There must have been some serious contact if "the runner is no longer "live":wacko:

 

Now that's funny.  I don't care if you are the runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 4:48 AM, Tborze said:

Hadn't seen the rear angle before!  The PU's angle didn't look as vicious. WOW! 

In real time though, I wouldn't have had MC as PU.  

Couldnt they have got together as a crew and ruled MC?

How could you have not had MC?  The catcher being knocked on his ass and his helmet flying up in to the air isn't evidence enough to call it?  There is no question from any angle that this is MC.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How could you have not had MC?  The catcher being knocked on his ass and his helmet flying up in to the air isn't evidence enough to call it?  There is no question from any angle that this is MC.

I'm not one to throw out MC's like candy at a parade. If I'm not 100% sure, I'm not dumpin a kid to lose out on 2 games, especially during a Title run. We are also not afforded the luxury of instant replays and stills, and my initial judgement on the play was from U1's perspective. 

I can see MC being called here. I was just being honest as to how I saw it live, which seems I wasn't the only one. I'm sure my positioning would have been a lil better though!  

After a collision like that, I would have gone to my partners to get their views and opinions. 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm not one to throw out MC's like candy at a parade. If I'm not 100% sure, I'm not dumpin a kid to lose out on 2 games, especially during a Title run.

We should have this attitude about any infraction. We don't want to guess on OBS, INT, or any other call. MC is no different.

Ask any supervisor, and you'll hear that officials don't call MC enough, partly due to attitudes like this (not to pick on you). Kids would stop doing it so much if we started calling it more. Look at what has happened to high hits in college with the introduction of the targeting rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tborze said:

I'm not one to throw out MC's like candy at a parade. If I'm not 100% sure, I'm not dumpin a kid to lose out on 2 games, especially during a Title run. We are also not afforded the luxury of instant replays and stills, and my initial judgement on the play was from U1's perspective. 

I can see MC being called here. I was just being honest as to how I saw it live, which seems I wasn't the only one. I'm sure my positioning would have been a lil better though!  

After a collision like that, I would have gone to my partners to get their views and opinions. 

 

 

A title run should have no bearing on calling MC, especially one so obvious.  It's like giving a runner more leeway on a fpsr violation because it's a title run.  The rules don't change because it's a title run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2018 at 7:57 PM, umpstu said:

How could you have not had MC?  The catcher being knocked on his ass and his helmet flying up in to the air isn't evidence enough to call it?  There is no question from any angle that this is MC.

In and of itself, the result of the contact is not what determines MC. I've had far more violent collisions that were legal and due to F2's mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 10:48 AM, Tborze said:

Watch the runners helmet. But to your point, what was his helmet still doing on?  Is that what they are teaching now?

I started catching 31 years ago. It was taught then.

Share this post


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

A title run should have no bearing on calling MC, especially one so obvious.  It's like giving a runner more leeway on a fpsr violation because it's a title run.  The rules don't change because it's a title run.

Look dude, stop jumping on the bandwagon!  I, along with others, obviously saw it differently than you. If you can read, nowhere did I say I wouldn't call MC because it was a title run as you so conveniently mentioned 3TIMES!!  

Are you questioning my judgement? :kissass:

7 hours ago, maven said:

We should have this attitude about any infraction. We don't want to guess on OBS, INT, or any other call. MC is no different.

Ask any supervisor, and you'll hear that officials don't call MC enough, partly due to attitudes like this (not to pick on you). Kids would stop doing it so much if we started calling it more. Look at what has happened to high hits in college with the introduction of the targeting rule.

So if you aren't sure, call it anyway because it's not called enough?  I'm sticking with my first judgement of seeing the play IN REAL TIME without the benefit of replay and I have no problem with the call on the field!!  If you feel it was MC, I have no problem with that!  I wouldn't question your JUDGEMENT!  I've had one MC call @ the plate in 26 yrs, and I knew it when I saw it. Are we now comparing baseball to football?  

55 minutes ago, Matt said:

I started catching 31 years ago. It was taught then.

I agree with it.  Hell, I keep my lid on at times for protection.  And obviously by keeping it on, helps to determine if there was MC or not by how far it flies off your head:sarcasm:

:givebeer:<ANOTHER  

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't have problems in my games!

Im done with this topic!  

@maven give me a call. I would love to take a drive over and call a game with you!  This way you will stop picking on me:cheers:

I love the emojis:wub: keeps me laughing so I don't get to a point where I want to :FIRE:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any word from Iowa on this? By rule, this would be MC. But I've also got F2 sliding in front of the runner, mid-stride, after the runner just avoided trucking PU. I hear many talking about F2 moving to the ball, but I don't see any ball, nor do I see F2 getting ready to receive the ball. But I wasn't there, so I don't know.  

I'd be very curious as to what happened on the field after this. 

Did the DHC question the no call? Everyone is talking about it except the guys who were there. 

Not that it means anything, but I've read in a couple places that F2 has a history of blocking. Just more questions. Just hope that we don't get more ill-conceived rules out of this incident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tborze said:

I'm not one to throw out MC's like candy at a parade. If I'm not 100% sure, I'm not dumpin a kid to lose out on 2 games, especially during a Title run. We are also not afforded the luxury of instant replays and stills, and my initial judgement on the play was from U1's perspective. 

I can see MC being called here. I was just being honest as to how I saw it live, which seems I wasn't the only one. I'm sure my positioning would have been a lil better though!  

After a collision like that, I would have gone to my partners to get their views and opinions. 

 

 

I'm actually with @Tborze here. At first look on this play, which was a quick glance from a Facebook post that said "thoughts?", I did not see MC. The view that was given (3BLX) I did not see anything more than a crash and F2 being there without the ball.

It wasn't until I read the comments and saw a second view (this time from the 3BL) that it became obvious that the runner had bad intentions on his mind.

Yes, I think U1 was to quick on his call. Especially in an instance with such a violent collision. What I am more upset with is that none of the other umpires (what does PU have to watch after R2 passes him but wherethe ball is going) thought it a good idea to get together and get this right.

MC, like FPSR, is a safety rule first and foremost. We need to be willin to get together and get these right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple last thoughts (I seldom post after "page 1" of  a thread).

  1. Of course this is a judgment call, but since we have video we can assess the correctness of the judgment. That's one of the valuable uses of video.
  2. Given that it's a judgment call, we can't say that "this is MC by rule": no, that's a judgment call. Nobody posting here has gotten the rule wrong (which is difficult to do, as the rule includes no definition).
  3. Of course ejection (plus whatever suspension our respective states attach to ejections) is a serious penalty. It has to be in order to deter the infraction, which is also serious. By refusing to use it—or, what is in practice the same thing, maintaining too high a bar for MC—we undercut the deterrent effect of the penalty. Please reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, maven said:

A couple last thoughts (I seldom post after "page 1" of  a thread).

  1. Of course this is a judgment call, but since we have video we can assess the correctness of the judgment. That's one of the valuable uses of video.
  2. Given that it's a judgment call, we can't say that "this is MC by rule": no, that's a judgment call. Nobody posting here has gotten the rule wrong (which is difficult to do, as the rule includes no definition).
  3. Of course ejection (plus whatever suspension our respective states attach to ejections) is a serious penalty. It has to be in order to deter the infraction, which is also serious. By refusing to use it—or, what is in practice the same thing, maintaining too high a bar for MC—we undercut the deterrent effect of the penalty. Please reconsider.

If there was no throw (ball still in the outfield) and you judged no malicious intent by the runner (whatever action that would let you judge that) would you have anything other than obstruction by the catcher? He initiated a collision, probably intentionally.

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

×