Mr Umpire

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened. We don't seem to be reading the same question. The question supposed obstruction not of type A. Obstruction on the BR would be type A. (I'm not sure what we're imagining here if it's F2 obstructing. R3?) If we have a pending type B obstruction, the ball remains live until the batter-runner contacts the ball. We have to call the INT, which kills the play. The result of the play is an out, but it doesn't stand due to the obstruction. It's much like the Balk/Catcher's Interference question. No, its not like the Balk/CI question. And, you did not read the bottom part of that post since you cut it short. Even if OBS is Type B, the only time you will reference the INT is if OBS does not nullify it. There is no referencing it at all if OBS nullifies it. Nothing about referencing it at all. The result of the play is not an option. The result is Time called if the out would not have occurred absent the OBS regardless of why the runner is out. Time being called is the result every time with bases being awarded if necessary if an out occurs when it shouldn't have. There is no other option in a case like this. The Balk/CI had several different options and each one had to be reviewed individually. This has 2 options: the play that occurred or the OBS. Take the entire play or call Time to award bases. Nothing left to examine.

I think: Call the obstruction. Call the interference for touching the live ball. Kill the play. Nullify the interference from touching the live ball in that case as part of the penalty for obstruction. Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened. And, if it is a Type B OBS, as soon as the runner is out and he would not have been without the OBS, call Time and award the bases (if any). If the obstructed runner is not going to be awarded any bases, then he is out if out on the play. This is true of a BR obstructed before 1B on a fly ball as well. Again, why even reference the INT? 1) Call OBS 2) Call Time if necessary 3) Award bases if necessary Anything else that happens on the play is either called or nullified without referencing it at all.

It may be scored a sac bunt, but he wasn't doing that. It was for a base hit but he didn't get it.

For the first time in a long time, give the announcers some credit. They acknowledged how they missed it too watching the play live and with only 1 look at it.

At least it is still open for discussion if desired.

Once there is no tag attempt, there is no base path.

I think you might have said this in the previous thread, too. The word in the OBR is baseline. Neverthess, I understand and appreciate the distinction you are making. The baseline is not the foul line. The words are "base path".

Agreed to here. He's more than 3 feet from home when he passes home. The baseline goes through home. It's only by judging the tag attempt over and by judging his momentum carrying him is not part of his attempt to avoid that we don't have an out. Being more than 3 feet from home has nothing to do with it and there was no tag attempt when he landed.

There is no way he went 3' from HIS baseline (actually it says from his base path). The runner establishes his line to the next base (not the fair/foul line or the line between bases). He was already on the grass when the attempt occurred. That is where his baseline is. The runner was out of reach b/c the catcher was on his knees and couldn't reach any farther. At the time of the attempt (NOT where he landed), he is well within the 3' "lane". Nothing "tortured" about it. That is why the word "his" is in there and not "3 foot from the line between bases" and it does not say "the baseline". And, it is at the time of the tag attempt. Not, the entire time he is running to the next base. Here is the correct wording of the rule

I got it too but I didn't end a plate meeting with "Any questions". This is exactly why I don't. Useless questions arise when asked. It was a base coach in between innings.

It doesn't matter where he ends up after the tag attempt. Only where he was at the time of the tag attempt. F2 was not chasing him with the tag. The tag attempt was less than a second long. He was within 3' IMO at the moment the tag attempt was made.

Yeah, but I wasn't responding to the other post. :fuel:

No. At the moment the actual tag attempt occurred, I do not think he went over 3 feet. Once it was over, it doesn't matter anymore. I think he stayed within the 3 foot "lane".

Play at the plate and Angel Hernandez makes a heck of good call on it. R1, 2 outs. Ball hit into RF corner. Relay to the plate and F2 gets it with 10 feet to spare. F2 falls to his knees and misses R1. R1 scrambles back to get around the 2nd attempted tag. Great mechanics by PU to not signal anything on the first attempt and then signal safe after R1 touched the plate. Great call and way to stick with the play through its entirety. He could have easily assumed an easy out call on it.

He does have a point fellas. But I think the thread has run its course. The only thing I can say is that there are hundreds of pitches per game, and this call might happened a few times in a career. I guess I see no point. I call it as I see it. I don't make an out call just b/c the defense looked good on the play. I don't call an out just b/c BR slid into 1B. I don't call a ball just b/c F2 dropped the ball. The only point is when these things happen, it makes the call more difficult to call. That is the only point I see but it does not sway the fact that "I call it as I see it" and my games go quite well for the most part. Sometimes, things happen and they don't. Just b/c Gonzalez doesn't understand the rule doesn't make a difference. If his players would have gotten doubled up for some reason related to it, he'd be arguing "It should have been called" and probably protested that call. Or, if bases loaded, Matheny would have argued for it. Either way, it is a no-win situation. But, I'd rather get the call correct b/c the rule states it to be called that way than to not call it b/c I just felt to without any rule support and hope no one calls me on it.

The only thing I might do a little different is not acknowledge him in the stands unless you notice him coaching or he starts something. As long as he is quiet, I wouldn't even notice him. It could start something unnecessary. And, if I am going to acknowledge him, I'd try to find a park official before getting the acting HC to do it if possible. It may just go further if someone with a little more authority gets him to leave. It may stick with him a little better too. Otherwise, she earned it and so did he.

Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related. So regardless of the book you call your zone. That's what I thought. Thanks. Don't read very well. Do you? Now, I am done. I had to get that last one in since it seems to be a reoccurring theme with you.

Actually, the debate was over posts ago once it left the topic. I just wanted to see if it would make it to 200. I'm done.

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule". So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not? Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related.

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill. You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive. Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule".

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read. As you said, wow...just wow. You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it? Again, reading skill? Doesn't seem hard to lose you in this thread. You seem lost from the beginning.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully. So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it? You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill.

I actually get what you're saying here. You make some good points. Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B. Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully.

Did I say I did any of that? OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go? I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow. If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read. As you said, wow...just wow.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports. What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go. I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate? Did I say I did any of that?