Walk off OBS

[alex7]

So, do we interpret from the Wendelstedt manual that, absent all the players storming the home plate area, Craig or any other runner in a similar play doesn't have to touch the plate? 

 

Would this be the correct sequence:

 

"Safe!  We have obstruction, (pointing to 3rd) obstruction!  (point to home) Safe here!" and point the plate to score the run?  No need for the runner to get up and touch it?

 

Would that be an acceptable sequence in that situation?  Would you call time after your safe call?  Thanks in advance.

[BigSimonia]

Actually, type

 

Wow! This thread exploded. You can see that when the tag was applied by the Boston catcher, that Demuth immediately gave the "Safe!" signal, and he pointed towards third bases to acknowledge the obstruction call made by Jim Joyce. At that point, Demuth turns and points firmly towards home plate. This is the mechanic that is used to "score" the run. With the St. Louis team converging out of the dugout and then the Boston manager and a few players converging on home plate, the argument became moot, and Boston abandoned the field in disgust of the odd way the game ended. Demuth scored the run, in a similar fashion that the infamous home run obstruction was called just a few weeks ago previously discussed on U-E. Demuth scored the run, the game is over. What a weird ending to an otherwise boring game.

 

The obstruction call was correct and Boston lost it the moment it occurred. We just got to watch it play out.

Actually, type "B" obstruction (which this was) is delayed dead ball.  You wait until the action has been completed and then make the determination as to what the result of the play would have been without the obstruction.  The award of home (in this case) is not necessarily automatic.  If the runner had tripped on his own after the obstruction it would be pssible to call him out on the tag at home despite the previous obstruction.  So saying Boston lost it the moment it occured is not QUITE correct - you have to wait to see what happens. 

[Texas Manny]

Actually, type

 

Wow! This thread exploded. You can see that when the tag was applied by the Boston catcher, that Demuth immediately gave the "Safe!" signal, and he pointed towards third bases to acknowledge the obstruction call made by Jim Joyce. At that point, Demuth turns and points firmly towards home plate. This is the mechanic that is used to "score" the run. With the St. Louis team converging out of the dugout and then the Boston manager and a few players converging on home plate, the argument became moot, and Boston abandoned the field in disgust of the odd way the game ended. Demuth scored the run, in a similar fashion that the infamous home run obstruction was called just a few weeks ago previously discussed on U-E. Demuth scored the run, the game is over. What a weird ending to an otherwise boring game.

 

The obstruction call was correct and Boston lost it the moment it occurred. We just got to watch it play out.

Actually, type "B" obstruction (which this was) is delayed dead ball.  You wait until the action has been completed and then make the determination as to what the result of the play would have been without the obstruction.  The award of home (in this case) is not necessarily automatic.  If the runner had tripped on his own after the obstruction it would be pssible to call him out on the tag at home despite the previous obstruction.  So saying Boston lost it the moment it occured is not QUITE correct - you have to wait to see what happens. 

My statement of "the moment it occurred" is based upon what happened in totality, not at the actual time that the obstruction occurred. No foresight was intended. It was an observation of the play dissected; hindsight. That's all. You simply misunderstood the context of the statement.

 

By all means, this was a delayed obstruction call. I wasn't getting into the heart of obstruction rulings at that point. This was just general observations.

[Texas Manny]

So, do we interpret from the Wendelstedt manual that, absent all the players storming the home plate area, Craig or any other runner in a similar play doesn't have to touch the plate? 

 

Would this be the correct sequence:

 

"Safe!  We have obstruction, (pointing to 3rd) obstruction!  (point to home) Safe here!" and point the plate to score the run?  No need for the runner to get up and touch it?

 

Would that be an acceptable sequence in that situation?  Would you call time after your safe call?  Thanks in advance.

The key words in the Wendelstedt footnote is "umpire deems". That means, in his judgment. In order for the umpire to make that judgment call, he needs to observe everything that is occurring with the play. It's not an automatic. With this situation, Dana Demuth obviously "deemed" he would have touched it, so he awarded the plate to the runner, and the interpretation means that the runner is considered to have touched home plate. Any other situation, to which that footnote is applied, would have to be looked upon in its entirety. The "deeming" would need to be based on that plays facts, and facts alone. Each situation is judged on its merits. This is not a 100% cover all, as by the written language of the interpretations footnote.

[alex7]

That's why I referred to Craig scoring or anyone else in a similar (bang bang) play.  I know it's not a cover all, just wanted to know a solid sequence absent the mad rush of players around home plate.

[Texas Manny]

That's why I referred to Craig scoring or anyone else in a similar (bang bang) play.  I know it's not a cover all, just wanted to know a solid sequence absent the mad rush of players around home plate.

Even without the mad rush to home by both sides, I would use the interpretations footnote and score the run, just as Demuth had. There is safety in the professional interpretation.

[JHSump]

 

It will be a credit to the Sox Organization if they all come out and just start talking about another tough situation to be in and that the play was called correctly by the umpires (just like the one at 2nd base was called correctly in the end on the opening game) and it is just one of those things, and you got to keep on going and look to the next game.

 

That may be wishful thinking.  Right after the game, in some locker room interviews, some of the Red Sox players had already demonstrated that they did not understand the rule and argued that it should not have been called.  Even the manager was leaning that way in the postgame interview room.

 

Now, if a Red Sox team leader comes forward and says this was the right call, and they need to move on, I will forever think very highly of that player.  I hope it happens.  Maybe once the calm down a bit, and read the rulebook, they will see it for what it is.

 

I really liked the interview with the umpires and Torre.  I really liked how Torre handled it all with the press.

 

One thing I do know is that I will get asked about this by friends, co-workers, etc., etc. --- actually, that happened immediately (by texts).

 

And, it will be a big topic discussed by coaches, the TD, etc., at the games I am doing today.  A teachable moment.

[Concernedcitizen2]

Wondering what the correct mechanic on this would be, did DeMuth get it right?  

 

Should he have unemphatically signaled "out" and then pointed to Joyce and emphatically signaled safe.  Since it is type B, isn't the play supposed to be played out and then the umpire determines that he would have been safe?  So shouldn't he have been out and then cite the obstruction to signal safe?

[GoodOldGus]

100% right call.  I love the mechanic used by both umpires and I think they handled it wonderfully.  I think the umpires and Torre did a great job not getting "baited" by some of the ridiculous questions being asked by the reporters.  I love the question about the baseline and their response.  

 

Several things the Red Sox could have done differently in the last inning as well.  Probably should have walked Jay to load the bases, not giving Napoli an opportunity to hit and a questionable throw to 3B by the catcher on the last play of the game.  

[Concernedcitizen2]

One more thing, I noticed in the replays that Joyce kind of had his head on a swivel.  I assume this is because he's used to having responsibility for a ball being interfered with by a fan in the regular season 4 man rotation.  But in this case, should his head have been locked in on the runner/fielder to ensure that he is able to see the whole obstruction situation.  In the 6 man isn't the LF ump responsible for fan interference? I have no idea if I am right, I'm just asking for opinions...

[Umpete]

One more thing, I noticed in the replays that Joyce kind of had his head on a swivel. I assume this is because he's used to having responsibility for a ball being interfered with by a fan in the regular season 4 man rotation. But in this case, should his head have been locked in on the runner/fielder to ensure that he is able to see the whole obstruction situation. In the 6 man isn't the LF ump responsible for fan interference? I have no idea if I am right, I'm just asking for opinions...

Good question. I noticed where Joyce was looking also, but I don't know the coverage. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Umpete]

I think the umpires and Torre did a great job not getting "baited" by some of the ridiculous questions being asked by the reporters.

One of the questions was, "What could Middlebrooks have done differently?" I would have loved to see Torre say, "Catch the baseball!" Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Kevin_K]

Awesome call. Right person in the right place reacting to the situation without regard to the outcome of making "that call"

[BigUmp56]

Let's throw out what we as umpires all know; that intent was/is not required here to rule OBS. Am I alone in my assessment that Middlebrooks did lift his legs in an intentional, albeit subtle attempt to hinder Craig?

Tim

[Nazrat]

My favorite part of this was showing the play to my 13 year old who immediately said, "That's obstruction."  He was asleep during the game and I did not explain what was about to happen. 

 

Proud father today.

[BigUmpire]

My favorite part of this was showing the play to my 13 year old who immediately said, "That's obstruction." He was asleep during the game and I did not explain what was about to happen. Proud father today.

Textbook call Bravo Jim Joyce

[timmybloops]

Let's throw out what we as umpires all know; that intent was/is not required here to rule OBS. Am I alone in my assessment that Middlebrooks did lift his legs in an intentional, albeit subtle attempt to hinder Craig?

Tim

 

I actually think Middlebrooks thought he was getting out of the way by lifting his legs away from the foul line where he expected the runner to be.  Just another reason intent doesn't matter because his intent may have been opposite the result.

[Maineac]

Agreed that that was a great call. If anyone needs to be wearing goat horns here it's Saltalamacchia for that lousy throw.

[Mike Prince]

Agree, good call and I like how DeMuth immediately went to the safe call and pointed at 3B/Joyce.  Joyce did a great job calling it immediately as well, so there was no doubt as to what happened.

[basejester]

What a weird ending to an otherwise boring game.

I know, right? I don't think there were any clowns, magicians, or strippers.   

[Rich Ives]

In the aftermath on ESPN came the best line of the night.  Someone asked what the headlines will be and Shilling said, "Depends on which city. It might unprintable".

[maineump]

As the play goes - great call by Joyce.

What if Middlebrooks tries to get up to chase after the ball and they tangle? Do we still have obstruction or is Middlebrooks in the act of playing the ball?

It happens at 1B a lot, but that is going back into the bag, is this any different - by rule?

 

Just a question - Thanks

[basejester]

As the play goes - great call by Joyce.

What if Middlebrooks tries to get up to chase after the ball and they tangle? Do we still have obstruction or is Middlebrooks in the act of playing the ball?

It happens at 1B a lot, but that is going back into the bag, is this any different - by rule?

 

Just a question - Thanks

That's obstruction.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and

not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in

flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he

may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.†It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to

whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and

missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding†the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

[NCAAump2]

Boring game? Were we watching the same game, Texas Manny? How did you find it boring? I think "boring" would be the last word I would use to describe that game.

[Texas Manny]

Boring game? Were we watching the same game, Texas Manny? How did you find it boring? I think "boring" would be the last word I would use to describe that game.

I just didn't find the game that exciting. Basic plays. A few nice grabs. No real action to speak of. It wasn't until the end that it picked up, but I lost interest. It was just my feeling.