Obstruction?

[maven]

Or, how to score a run without touching HP.

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30934665

[hbk314]

Not sure why Freddie Freeman was tossed and Reed Johnson wasn't.

 

I'm surprised McCann stayed in the game also.

[Jimurray]

Not sure why Freddie Freeman was tossed and Reed Johnson wasn't.

 

I'm surprised McCann stayed in the game also.[/quote

I think Gomez abandoned. Did they score the run? Manny, we need help here.

[hbk314]

Not sure why Freddie Freeman was tossed and Reed Johnson wasn't.

 

I'm surprised McCann stayed in the game also.[/quote

I think Gomez abandoned. Did they score the run? Manny, we need help here.

 

They did score the run. I don't know if the Braves ever tried appealing.

[Texas Manny]

Not sure why Freddie Freeman was tossed and Reed Johnson wasn't.

 

I'm surprised McCann stayed in the game also.[/quote

I think Gomez abandoned. Did they score the run? Manny, we need help here.

They awarded the run because McCann blocked and it is evident that they didn't want to send Gomez back out there to score, as it would just inflame the situation. I know that Gomez was ejected, and several Braves were, but I don't understand why McCann wasn't run.

[Texas Manny]

 

Not sure why Freddie Freeman was tossed and Reed Johnson wasn't.

 

I'm surprised McCann stayed in the game also.[/quote

I think Gomez abandoned. Did they score the run? Manny, we need help here.

 

They did score the run. I don't know if the Braves ever tried appealing.

 

No appeal. The umpires awarded the run scored due to McCann blocking and the evident risk of having Gomez go back out and touch. Gomez was officially scored with a run scoring triple.

[hbk314]

 

Juan Pierre called safe on a pickoff play at second. Would have been second out.

 

 

 

 

Yelich called out at first on the ol' empty hand tag to end the inning. If he'd have been called safe, Pierre would have scored the go-ahead run.

[Jimurray]

I'm saying Gomez ran in to McCann when he could have gone around him with no effort. McCann was on the foul line and Gomez had rounded third and his base path would have taken him by McCann but Gomez veered into a confrontation with McCann. He then could have disengaged and proceeded to HP. I have abandonment. I think my judgement is colored by Gomez demeanor. I would have loved to not score that run. Don't really know who the good guys or bad guys are here though.

[hbk314]

I'm saying Gomez ran in to McCann when he could have gone around him with no effort. McCann was on the foul line and Gomez had rounded third and his base path would have taken him by McCann but Gomez veered into a confrontation with McCann. He then could have disengaged and proceeded to HP. I have abandonment. I think my judgement is colored by Gomez demeanor. I would have loved to not score that run. Don't really know who the good guys or bad guys are here though.

 

From what I can see on the video, Gomez is very slow out of the box. It sounds like McCann yells at him to run with a couple profanities in there. Gomez then proceeded to jaw at people, mostly the pitcher, all the way around the bases. Obviously Freeman had words for him around first and McCann was waiting for him up the line.

 

Others online are saying Gomez pointed at his leg, referencing Maholm hitting him with a pitch back in June.

 

Nobody really looked good in this situation, but it looks terrible to me when you can't run the bases without running your mouth the whole time.

[hbk314]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30940821

 

Video of the Yelich play at first.

[Jimurray]

I thought I was stirring stuff but I wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously, abandonment is not the issue here, but if, as Manny pointed out an appeal which wasn't made, actually was made, what wouldbe the call? There is a rule regarding not touching HP in a similar situation but I'm going to post this on the fly without reading it.

[ricka56]

The umpires may have talked it over with the managers. UIC says, I don't want to bring Gomez back out here to step on HP and re-ignite the flames, but if you're going to appeal him missing homeplate, then I'm going to fix my mistake and award Gomez home on the obstruction and have him comeback out here...do either of you want that? No, ok, players x, y, and z are ejected. lets get back to baseball.

[Haid D' Salaami]

for the life of me I can't figure it out.. HOLY SH*T....

[CentralOhioUmp30]

Just saw this. Wow. Thank goodness stuff like this will be cleared up with replay. Could you imagine if this was a game that actually mattered? Woof.

[Texas Manny]

The umpires may have talked it over with the managers. UIC says, I don't want to bring Gomez back out here to step on HP and re-ignite the flames, but if you're going to appeal him missing homeplate, then I'm going to fix my mistake and award Gomez home and have him comeback out here...do either of you want that? No, ok, players x,y, and z are ejected. lets get back to baseball.

There is no mistake made by the umpires.

 

Rule 9.01(D):(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field. If an umpire disqualifies a player while a play is in progress, the disqualification shall not take effect until no further action is possible in that play.

 

The all knew it would be inflammatory for Gomez to come back out, so they awarded him home plate. There is no appeal possible in the scenario that unfolded at this game.

[Texas Manny]

I thought I was stirring stuff but I wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously, abandonment is not the issue here, but if, as Manny pointed out an appeal which wasn't made, actually was made, what wouldbe the call? There is a rule regarding not touching HP in a similar situation but I'm going to post this on the fly without reading it.

No appeal is possible. The umpires awarded Gomez home plate because he was unable to step on the plate due to McCann's obstruction, and to allow him to come back out and continue would only inflame the situation. A very wise move on the umpires discretion.

[ricka56]

 

The umpires may have talked it over with the managers. UIC says, I don't want to bring Gomez back out here to step on HP and re-ignite the flames, but if you're going to appeal him missing homeplate, then I'm going to fix my mistake and award Gomez home and have him comeback out here...do either of you want that? No, ok, players x,y, and z are ejected. lets get back to baseball.

There is no mistake made by the umpires.

 

Rule 9.01(D):(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field. If an umpire disqualifies a player while a play is in progress, the disqualification shall not take effect until no further action is possible in that play.

 

The all knew it would be inflammatory for Gomez to come back out, so they awarded him home plate. There is no appeal possible in the scenario that unfolded at this game.

 

My post was speculation about how the umpires could get away with not bring Gomez back. If you are going to award Gomez HP, as you suggest, them the correct way to do it is to say, "You (Gomez) get HP". If they didn't do that and give him an opportunity to touch HP, then that would be a mistake. And just because an umpire awards bases doesn't mean that a runner can not be called out on appeal if he didn't actually touch those awarded base(s). But if the umpires and the managers had a gentlemen's agreement about how to proceed, then the run counts and they can get back to baseball without any more horseSH*#.

[ricka56]

Maybe CB had the wherewithal to bail his partner out. He's nodding, "oh, yeah, my partner's buying my beer, tonight".

[Lindsay]

This is the best case play of the 2013 season.

[Concernedcitizen2]

Isn't there a rule saying that if a batter hits a home run and is unable to round the bases, a pinch runner may be substituted for him?  I remember hearing this in the minors that somebody hit a home run and then fainted on his way to first, a pinch runner then finished his trip around the bases.  Could a pinch runner (or whoever his replacement was) have been put in to finish the last 30 feet?

[afaber12]

I've got a few rules that seem relevant to the situation.
 

7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.â€
b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time†and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

 
It seems pretty clear that the "catcher, without the ball in his possession ... block[ed] the pathway of the runner attempting to score" so obstruction could have been called. Though it is usual for a runner an award of base(s) to be required to touch the base(s) in question, the last part of 7.06b would seem to leave the door open to the umpires do anything to cancel out that obstruction, such as ruling that Gomez was not required to touch the plate for the run to score.
  

7.08 Any runner is out when—
a)
1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or
2) after touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

Rule 7.08a) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.
This rule also covers the following and similar plays: Less than two out, score tied last of ninth inning, runner on first, batter hits a ball out of park for winning run, the runner on first passes second and thinking the home run automatically wins the game, cuts across diamond toward his bench as batter-runner circles bases. In this case, the base runner would be called out “for abandoning his effort to touch the next base†and batter-runner permitted to continue around bases to make his home run valid. If there are two out, home run would not count (see Rule 7.12). This is not an appeal play.

 
Gomez didn't stay on the base line (I almost said he 'left' the base line, but I didn't for reasons I'll explain later) but without a tag attempt, 7.08a1 doesn't apply. You could easily argue that under 7.08a2 he abandoned his effort to touch the next base, given that - after some considerable efforts by various team mates to calm him down which were at least effective on the surface - he eventually sat down on the bench. I think there's the potential to say that he didn't leave the base path, rather that he was removed from the base path by his team mates and/or the opposition during initial moments of the confrontation. I'll admit before anyone accuses me of it, to perhaps trying to split hairs or reading the rules too literally, and that a distinction like that is pretty fine and perhaps too fine to apply. Not that I could come up with another circumstance where that distinction might apply, but maybe its worth thinking about. I look forward to your accusations of me being "too picky".
 
Whether they thought something similar to what I put here or not, presumably the umpires didn't judge him to have abandoned the base paths given they didn't call him out.
 

7.08 Any runner is out when—
k) In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision.
Rule 7.08k) Comment: This rule applies only where the runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

No appeal was made, so we don't know whether the umpires would have called Gomez out on one, but potentially they would have. It suggested above by @ricka56 that the umpires may have explained that they were scoring the run to Fredi Gonzalez despite him not touching the plate, and essentially told him don't appeal because "we don't want World War IV, we only just survived III two seconds ago". Its possible if Gonzalez had decided to "cry 'havoc', let slip the dogs of war" (do I get credit for first Shakespeare quote on this board?), and directed someone to appeal, that the umpires could have used the comment's first phrase "This rule applies only where the runner is on his way to the bench..." and used the technicality of him being in the clubhouse already to not uphold the appeal.

 
I'd also note that though this rule is usually invoked when a runner steps over the plate or slides past and next to the plate, the wording would seem to cover this situation: he was running for the base (up until the confrontation) and he failed to touch the base (as noted multiple times by both TV crews).
 
----
 
In summary, I think under 7.06b Gomez is or could have been awarded home, though it'd be redundant with the home run under 7.05a. 7.06b would allow the umpires to score the run despite the obvious non-touch of home. He may have been at risk for an appeal at home, and he was apparently not judged to have abandoned the base paths. Maybe its an unfair gut reaction, but I think I would have called him out on appeal, particularly seeing as a perhaps loose interpretation of 5.10c1 would allow the sub to complete the run.
 

5.10 The ball becomes dead when an umpire calls “Time.†The umpire-in-chief shall call “Timeâ€â€”

c) When an accident incapacitates a player or an umpire;

1) If an accident to a runner is such as to prevent him from proceeding to a base to which he is entitled, as on a home run hit out of the playing field, or an award of one or more bases, a substitute runner shall be permitted to complete the play.

[UMP45]

Just saw this. Wow. Thank goodness stuff like this will be cleared up with replay. Could you imagine if this was a game that actually mattered? Woof.

I thought every game mattered. Spoken like a true fan!

[afaber12]

No appeal. The umpires awarded the run scored due to McCann blocking and the evident risk of having Gomez go back out and touch. Gomez was officially scored with a run scoring triple.

 

Not sure about that. According to the box score on MLB.com, Gomez has his 23rd home run.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_09_25_milmlb_atlmlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=atl#gid=2013_09_25_milmlb_atlmlb_1&mode=box

[dumbdumb]

Living with the Angels. No protest=no harm, no foul. A crew earlier in the year gets a protest, all heck breaks loose.

 

Wonder how many times things happen at all levels of play with a rule. R1 and line drive to second. Ball goes OOB trying to double up runner diving back into first. Umpire gives runner 2nd base. The base he was going to plus 1. Nobody says a word, or umpire makes convincing explanation. Umpire is thought of as the greatest thing since sliced bread with the ruling cause it seems to make sense and is fair.

 

Looks like the same thing as our double play at third. Umpire saw the runner beat the play back at 2nd, and umpire saw the tag with the glove at first. No different than a half step miss on a play at first. Judgment call.

 

And maybe IR will clear this up also.

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30723777

[Thunderheads]

WOW!!!  

Living with the Angels. No protest=no harm, no foul. A crew earlier in the year gets a protest, all heck breaks loose.

 

Wonder how many times things happen at all levels of play with a rule. R1 and line drive to second. Ball goes OOB trying to double up runner diving back into first. Umpire gives runner 2nd base. The base he was going to plus 1. Nobody says a word, or umpire makes convincing explanation. Umpire is thought of as the greatest thing since sliced bread with the ruling cause it seems to make sense and is fair.

 

Looks like the same thing as our double play at third. Umpire saw the runner beat the play back at 2nd, and umpire saw the tag with the glove at first. No different than a half step miss on a play at first. Judgment call.

 

And maybe IR will clear this up also.

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30723777

DUMBDUMB, not sure I follow this and how it relates to the play posted in the OP