Obstruction?

[Texas Manny]

I just got clarification from a minor league umpire. Obstruction can be called since there is nothing in the rule that says it can only occur when the ball is in play. The secondary part of 7.06 applies, and the runner can be awarded the base he was entitled to. The run scores and not subject to appeal because it would be assumed that the run would have scored had obstruction not occurred.

 

I learned something more today.

 

No offense meant Chief

Great post KLAH...

[mstaylor]

If they used 7.06 then they are stretching it beyond the scope of the rule, translate that to mean wrong. I also said to invoke 9.01c as a method to award home in light of the mess that occurred. I also agree with ricka that using 9.01c is for weenies, in most cases. However, it is there for a purpose, to be used for that once or twice in a career when something genuinely comes up that is not covered. I believe this fits better than 7.06. As stated earlier in the thread, he could have easily gone around the catcher, he chose not to do so. 

[JaxRolo]

I just got clarification from a minor league umpire. Obstruction can be called since there is nothing in the rule that says it can only occur when the ball is in play. The secondary part of 7.06 applies, and the runner can be awarded the base he was entitled to. The run scores and not subject to appeal because it would be assumed that the run would have scored had obstruction not occurred. I learned something more today. No offense meant Chief Great post KLAH...

Ses like neither one of us was right on this one!

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

 

NO NO NO...There can be NO OBS with a dead ball which is what a HR is.

 

 

Umpires awarded Home Plate under 9.01-C to avoid any problems with Gomez returning to touch. The umpires awarded it under extenuating circumstances, i.e., the bench clearing brawl. 5.10-C would not apply because the runner was ejected, not injured.

 

 9.01© is for "any point not specifically covered in these rules". The sitch is highly unusual, but the umpires didn't need to go 9.01©, there were rules/remedies available.

 

After the dust settled the umpires could have explained the status of the situation to the managers

as they saw it. Say that 9.01(d) (probably with some explanation) would be invoked and then let the chips fall where they may. Or  they could recommend the remedy that I suggested above.

 

A sticth that is highly unusual ...HUH.. pretty sure none of us have ever seen a play like this before right?... so how much more unusual do we need?

[Haid D' Salaami]

I just got clarification from a minor league umpire. Obstruction can be called since there is nothing in the rule that says it can only occur when the ball is in play. The secondary part of 7.06 applies, and the runner can be awarded the base he was entitled to. The run scores and not subject to appeal because it would be assumed that the run would have scored had obstruction not occurred.

 

I learned something more today.

 

No offense meant Chief

Great post KLAH...

[Jocko]

I understand the desire to fully grasp every word of the rule book and know how it applies to every situation. I get that. What I don't get is the complete lack of common sense lately. The run scores. Who gives a damn which rule they applied to score it? Webster was a vocabularical (yep. Made that one up) genius. He spelled and defined words for the world. But he couldn't write for sh*t. Stephen King is a master novelist. Yet he often misspells words. Who's work would you rather read? I said that to say this...knowing the rules back and forth, inside and out won't make you a good umpire, in and of itself. You need judgement and timing and discernment. Knowing the dictionary verbatim won't make you a good writer, in and of itself. You need imagination and creativity and passion.

YMMV, but I am bored to tears with this type of talk. In the end, the run scored. As it should have. End of story.

[afaber12]

I agree that this type of discussion has the potential to be drawn out longer than required. Doesn't mean it's not useful.

 

I also take the point that knowing the rules back to front and inside out doesn't automatically make someone a great or even good umpire. But I'd suggest that it'd be very difficult for someone to make a great umpire without at least a solid understanding of the rules.

 

I also think that the further away you are from MLB in terms of the skills and ability of the players and the quality of the game, the more likely that whacky stuff can happen. When it's whacky you need to know what options you have and what actions you have to take. There's been plenty of discussions on here where someone's suggested using 9.01c to handle a situation, and that idea's been shut down because there's a rule that actually handles it. We've also all seen comments along the lines of "9.01c is for umpires who don't know what they're doing".

 

One of the big reasons for an umpire to use this forum is to see how others handle things, sometimes including how others got it wrong, so everyone's less likely to make a mistake on that situation next time. I figure it's much better for all of us to huddle here, sort it out, and get the call right the first time, than to try and work it out on the fly on the diamond. Much easier to take more time here than in the field.

[VAUmp]

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

I hope you're joking??? 

 

The FIRST thing I was ever taught was that umpires don't make "make up calls"

[ricka56]

 

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

I hope you're joking??? 

 

The FIRST thing I was ever taught was that umpires don't make "make up calls"

 

yeah, it was a joke and I didn't use emoticons. If my comedic material can't stand on its own without the use of emoticons, then I have failed you, bruda.  Emoticons are for weenies.  

 

My theory on that play is that F4 (running to try to cover 1B) obstructed CB's view of the tag attempt and he didn't see jack. I've had it happen to me (great position then someone darts in your view right when you needed to see). I think he went with what he thought were the best odds, made his best guess and stuck with it.

[noumpere]

I just got clarification from a minor league umpire. Obstruction can be called since there is nothing in the rule that says it can only occur when the ball is in play. The secondary part of 7.06 applies, and the runner can be awarded the base he was entitled to. The run scores and not subject to appeal because it would be assumed that the run would have scored had obstruction not occurred.

 

I learned something more today.

 

No offense meant Chief

Great post KLAH...

Manny -- imo, of course, you should stop posting dozens (estimated) of posts in a thread and if you want to just post one or two times your opinion and then give it a rest to see where it falls out.  You might be proven right and you might be proven wrong but you don't need to debate every post that disagrees with you.

[noumpere]

 I said that to say this...knowing the rules back and forth, inside and out won't make you a good umpire, in and of itself.

In fact, knowing (only) the literal reading of the rules inside and out will likely make you a horse-SH*# umpire.  You need to know the interps and how to apply the words to the game as it is played.

 

the rules don't always mean what they say or say what they mean.

 

(Of course there is the time or two when the literal meaning is the right meaning and you need to know that too)

[JaxRolo]

Who needs rules! I have never read a rule book or even know any rules and I get by just fine!

 

Rules are Overrated!!!

[mstaylor]

I will have to admit defeat on this ruling. I still disagree that 7.06b is the way to to go but I'm not a crew chief in MLB. I still think 9.01c is the way to go but the end result was bringing him back out to finish his award was not the thing to do. 

[JaxRolo]

I will have to admit defeat on this ruling. I still disagree that 7.06b is the way to to go but I'm not a crew chief in MLB. I still think 9.01c is the way to go but the end result was bringing him back out to finish his award was not the thing to do. 

 

Ok Mike now you are:

 

27,231 - Correct

1         - Wrong

 

 

Still not too shabby!

[mstaylor]

My wife always says I never admit when I'm wrong. I tell her I will freely admit when I am wrong, you just have to prove it. That's the hard part.

[Texas Manny]

 

I just got clarification from a minor league umpire. Obstruction can be called since there is nothing in the rule that says it can only occur when the ball is in play. The secondary part of 7.06 applies, and the runner can be awarded the base he was entitled to. The run scores and not subject to appeal because it would be assumed that the run would have scored had obstruction not occurred.

 

I learned something more today.

 

No offense meant Chief

Great post KLAH...

Manny -- imo, of course, you should stop posting dozens (estimated) of posts in a thread and if you want to just post one or two times your opinion and then give it a rest to see where it falls out.  You might be proven right and you might be proven wrong but you don't need to debate every post that disagrees with you.

 

I'm not trying to debate (even here). If I am told I am wrong, just don't tell me I'm wrong. That leaves me hanging. Tell me WHY you think I'm wrong and give me examples or an understanding why. I cannot learn, nor do I feel anyone else can if they don't understand why they are wrong. It's not a pissing match I'm after. It's education.

 

I realize that I'm a bit rusty with things. I'm getting all the cob webs out. I will try to work on it and be better. I can take constructive criticism all day; just not destructive or cynicalistic responses. That's not to say I don't have a sense of hunor. So working together makes everyone a happy camper. Will that work for you?

 

Thank you for having the courage to speak your heart and mind. It is appreciated.

[Mr Umpire]

I will have to admit defeat on this ruling. I still disagree that 7.06b is the way to to go but I'm not a crew chief in MLB. I still think 9.01c is the way to go but the end result was bringing him back out to finish his award was not the thing to do. 

Yeah, the main problem is with 7.06b throwing in the part about a play in the second part of the first sentence and calling "Time" after the play is over.  However, it is the only rule relating to the definition of OBS though the definition makes no mention of a play nor the ball having to be live for OBS to be called.  I think that is why it is used especially to avoid using 9.01c since that opens too many worms. 

 

I tend to agree with using the rule for that reason alone.  At least, I can show a coach in writing that a rule supports the ruling even if it does happen to throw in a reserved word due to a lack of a better word.

[ricka56]

I understand the desire to fully grasp every word of the rule book and know how it applies to every situation. I get that. What I don't get is the complete lack of common sense lately. The run scores. Who gives a damn which rule they applied to score it?

I do. This was one hellava event, one I can't ever remember seeing before. Being able to come up with a way to resolve the "play" (which the umpires apparently deemed it was) was needed. And these umpires had to come up with a legitimate solution (within the rules). Since it wasn't obvious how they did resolve it, it was a good academic exercise to guess how they did do it and (when their reasoning was revealed) to argue whether their solution was legit. And with all due respect, no one was forced to read/participate.

 

I think this "play" was  extrordinary in that it may have set a precedent (and you don't see that often). Though the 2.00 definition of obstruction doesn't preclude a dead ball situation, 7.06 doesn't appear to me to include it either (and perhaps does exclude it). And from what I've read/heard, I know of no other previous precedent for a dead ball obstruction call. Maybe there is one???

I said that to say this...knowing the rules back and forth, inside and out won't make you a good umpire, in and of itself. You need judgement and timing and discernment. Knowing the dictionary verbatim won't make you a good writer, in and of itself. You need imagination and creativity and passion.

Knowing the rules won't make you one a great umpire, but not thoroughly knowing them will prevent you one from becoming one. And I think there was a lot of imagination, creativity and passion demonstrated in the posts of this thread.

[Jocko]

I understand the desire to fully grasp every word of the rule book and know how it applies to every situation. I get that. What I don't get is the complete lack of common sense lately. The run scores. Who gives a damn which rule they applied to score it?

I do. This was one hellava event, one I can't ever remember seeing before. Being able to come up with a way to resolve the "play" (which the umpires apparently deemed it was) was needed. And these umpires had to come up with a legitimate solution (within the rules). Since it wasn't obvious how they did resolve it, it was a good academic exercise to guess how they did do it and (when their reasoning was revealed) to argue whether their solution was legit. And with all due respect, no one was forced to read/participate. I think this "play" was extrordinary in that it may have set a precedent (and you don't see that often). Though the 2.00 definition of obstruction doesn't preclude a dead ball situation, 7.06 doesn't appear to me to include it either (and perhaps does exclude it). And from what I've read/heard, I know of no other previous precedent for a dead ball obstruction call. Maybe there is one???

I said that to say this...knowing the rules back and forth, inside and out won't make you a good umpire, in and of itself. You need judgement and timing and discernment. Knowing the dictionary verbatim won't make you a good writer, in and of itself. You need imagination and creativity and passion.

Knowing the rules won't make you a great umpire, but not thoroughly knowing them will prevent you from becoming one. no fear of that

[ricka56]

 

 

I said that to say this...knowing the rules back and forth, inside and out won't make you a good umpire, in and of itself. You need judgement and timing and discernment. Knowing the dictionary verbatim won't make you a good writer, in and of itself. You need imagination and creativity and passion.

Knowing the rules won't make you a great umpire, but not thoroughly knowing them will prevent you from becoming one. no fear of that

 

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, I meant "you" in general. I should have used the word "one" instead of "you'...my mistake. Back editted it.

[Lindsay]

MLBU manual in regards to OBS A concurrent with a live, thrown ball that goes out of play, #43.8r: "Runners shall be awarded such bases on wild throws as they would have been awarded had no obstruction occurred." Under this vein, the award home is due to the home run entitling the batter to four bases, not due to the obstruction call as obstruction is held in abeyance in favor of the four base award ("had no obstruction occurred"), which is the B side of the specific case of A obstruction during a live, thrown ball. In other words, let's be very clear that obstruction doesn't change the character of the four base award in the slightest. Still, this does not specifically address the touch requirement (though the penalty provision of obstruction suggests touches may be virtually or artificially added post-play).

 

In more than one instance, MLBUM discusses the principle of making calls "within the spirit of the Rules." 

 

Under 4.09(b)'s "if fans rush the field and physically prevent the runner from touching home plate's" so-called "obstruction by the fans," umpires "shall award the runner the base."

 

I personally believe the spirit of the Rules suggest this ruling can extend to a play wherein the runner is obstructed by the defense, too. See 9.01(a) for why (two paragraphs down).

 

The rule furthermore states "if the runner...refuses to...touch home base in a reasonable time, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player and order the game resumed."

 

Here, however, we're dealing with the defense contributing, at least in part, to the BR's failure to touch. I wouldn't say Gomez "refused" to touch home base here ala the minor league Teague batter who refused to get in the batter's box when asked and was subsequently called out on strikes, for the batter in Teague's game had opportunity and clearly and voluntarily chose not to do so in a timely manner.

 

In this play, though, F2, at least in part, contributes to Gomez's inability to touch. Therefore, going with "spirit of the Rules," the penalty of obstruction outweighs the penalty of refusal or failure to touch. Umpire is obliged to "be responsible for the conduct of the game" and "maintain[] discipline and order on the playing field during the game" (9.01(a)): For the greater good, apply the principle of 4.09(b)'s fan obstruction scenario to this play and get Gomez out of the fire before a Diamondbacks-Dodgers style brawl breaks out...again.

 

Now we get to an appeal, which claims a "violation of the rules" by the offensive team (2.00 Appeal). The precise violation of the rules claimed is a failure to touch... but we see it is the defense's violation of the rules that technically precedes the offense's alleged violation of the rules. OBR is consistent: from balks to MLBU's scenario of F5 "jockeying back and forth, intentionally trying to block the runner's view of the fielder catching the ball" (43.11/obstruction B; if R3 were to leave early, score and defense appealed, umpire would rule obstruction and most likely award R3 home), the spirit of the Rules is to penalize the first team to offend - if the defense's violation of the rules precedes the offense's—especially if the D's violation causes or assists in the effecting of the O's violation—then the D is penalized and the O awarded the penalty, whether nullification or a concrete base award.

 

I guess this could be interpreted as a literal or analytical approach to stating that OBR promotes some measure of "common sense."

[Lindsay]

OBS A & B are separated out with examples for each type with the final sentence of B stating, "any other example where no play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed." The common language is "entitled to the base such runner would have reached had no obstruction occurred" with the principle, "determine what reasonably might have happened had the obstruction not occurred."

 

If out of that, we're looking at our runner touching home plate had obstruction not occurred, it would be within the rules to award the base plus the touch of the base.

 

We consider the case of a runner obstructed while attempting to round a base such that the obstruction prevents him from touching the base. The runner continues on to the next base, not having touched the previous base. In such a case, the runner would not be out on appeal for failure to touch the previous base for he was prevented—or obstructed—from doing so.

 

The Wendelstedt interpretation holds that if a runner fails to touch a base as a result of obstruction, the umpire may consider the base as touched or reached if it would have been touched or reached with no obstruction.

 

Similar to NFHS/NCAA, but not explicitly in the rules.

[ricka56]

OBS A & B are separated out with examples for each type with the final sentence of B stating, "any other example where no play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed." The common language is "entitled to the base such runner would have reached had no obstruction occurred" with the principle, "determine what reasonably might have happened had the obstruction not occurred."

I think the inclusion of this situation as a "play" is at the crux of the 7.06 argument. I thought that a play had to be a liveball situation. 7.06(a) If a play... 7.06(b)...the play shall procede. I didn't think a dead ball base march was considered a play. Isn't a play where the offense has the opportunity to advance/score and the defense has the opportunity to get an out? Is there any precedent for a deadball situation being considered a play? ...or is this play it?

[Larry in TN]

Just playing devil's advocate here...

 

In a home run situation, is the BR's rounding of the bases part of the play?  I would think so. If not, why does he have to do it?

 

The BR has already earned all four bases so a defensive player's action which prevents him from completing the trip shouldn't put the home run in jeopardy.  If it did, defensive players would be picking fights with the base-runners on every home run!

 

And, once again, I'm a Braves (the defensive team) fan.

[Mr Umpire]

Well, if we want to take the interpreted meaning of a play as being a legitimate chance to retire a runner, then Larry brings up a good point. 

 

The BR does have a chance to be put out (on appeal) if he doesn't touch all bases.  Thus, it is a legitimate chance to retire a runner if he doesn't touch all bases and the defense did not allow him to touch all bases during the "play".  The only thing which would nullify that is to disallow an appeal and score the run.  As I mentioned before, the definition of OBS does not say it only applies to a "live" ball.  And, if a play is defined as a legitimate chance to retire a runner (even on appeal), then this falls within the definition.  Following that logic, OBS is absolutely the correct ruling.