Jump to content

Obstruction in Rays-Dbacks game

Gfoley4

By Gfoley4
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4070 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Richvee
Richvee

Here's my take. Myers was confused before getting to 2nd. By the time he rounded 2nd, the throw was already on it's way in from F9 into F4. That's about when the OBS happened.  MLBUM: Rule 7.06 The ob

conbo61
conbo61

If he would have gotten up and busted into third and been thrown out, do you think that they would have awarded him 3B?  Did they "only" protect him back to 2B because he appeared to give himself up?

johnnyg08
johnnyg08

I don't think the runner had any idea what he was doing.  He got deked so bad prior to that play the obstruction was the best thing that happened to him on that play.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I think they ruled Type B and protected him to second base.  

I can't believe it took them that long to figure it out.  I'd be curious to hear what they were discussing.

At the time of the OBS, it appears as though they weren't making a play on him yet.

  • Like 1
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

Type b, as there was no play on the runner when he was obstructed.

They changed the award to 2B, and protected him "back" on the grounds that he was already past 2B when he was obstructed.

MikeSafari

MikeSafari

Posted
Posted

Ah, commentators.

"On an obstruction call, the runner is awarded the next base."

Yeah no.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Ah, commentators.

"On an obstruction call, the runner is awarded the next base."

Yeah no.

​In their defense, and I don't go there often...they were kind of right.  

conbo61

conbo61

Posted
Posted

If he would have gotten up and busted into third and been thrown out, do you think that they would have awarded him 3B?  Did they "only" protect him back to 2B because he appeared to give himself up?

Would the runner's (Myers) actions have any bearing on the award?

  • Like 2
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

If he would have gotten up and busted into third and been thrown out, do you think that they would have awarded him 3B?  Did they "only" protect him back to 2B because he appeared to give himself up?

Would the runner's (Myers) actions have any bearing on the award?

​I think his actions had a lot to do w/ the award.  

BuckeyeMike

BuckeyeMike

Posted
Posted

So was the PU's sweat-stained hat like that BEFORE he started the game or did that occur DURING?   I wrestle with this problem all season long.  Can't stand the white salt-wave on my hats. 

Too long of a conference between umpires (but ultimately, I think they got it right) and WAY WAY WAY too long talking with the coach after the decision. 

JHSump

JHSump

Posted
Posted

I have to say I am confused by this result. If they ruled Type B obstruction, and protected him only to 2B or back to 2B, then would he not be out as he was tagged walking to 3B? How is this different from what occurred to Miguel Tejada back in 2003?

Here is the video:

Look at "Blunder 33 Rally Killer"

 

Look

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

I'm confused along with @‌JHSump. I think that Joyce might have been talked (long convo) out of his protection to 3B, felt that he had put the runner at a disadvantage and the only "fair" thing to do was put him back at 2B...not sure what happened.   

BuckeyeMike

BuckeyeMike

Posted
Posted (edited)

@‌JHSump, To me, it's no different than the Tejada play.     If memory serves, Tejada was called OUT because he gave himself up and did not continue to run, much the same as I would have ruled on this play. 

Had he tried for 3B and got tagged out, he gets 3B.  Had he tried to get back to 2B and got tagged out, he gets 2B.

IMO, it matters that he gave himself up/ didn't try to get to 3B/ didn't try to get back to 2B.  He just gave up and expected an awarded base.  What was he "obstructed" from doing exactly?  

(At 1:32ish of the video)  Does it matter that the ball was coming in to F4, in relation to what the BR was doing at that moment?  Did this factor into the long umpire discussion? (I think it did)

Edit: Upon a 4th view of the video, did the BR give up b/c of Joyce's call of OBS?   That throws a whole new wrinkle into it.

Edited by BuckeyeMike
JHSump

JHSump

Posted
Posted

@BuckeyeMike that the runner may have given up b/c of Joyce's call of OBS is a possibility. If that happens is the "lesson" here that we fix it? This is all very interesting.

@ricka56 your comment is also very interesting. 

Whatever was decided, it would be nice to know what the umpires discussed.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

What Black didn't understand is that his runner could have been called out.  I was surprised to see him having such a heated conversation with Joyce about the situation, they could've simply called him out.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted (edited)

So was the PU's sweat-stained hat like that BEFORE he started the game or did that occur DURING?   I wrestle with this problem all season long.  Can't stand the white salt-wave on my hats. 

Too long of a conference between umpires (but ultimately, I think they got it right) and WAY WAY WAY too long talking with the coach after the decision. 

​I'm sorry that's all you got out of this, but ............ :wave:

Salt stains can be solved by: spraying your hat with water before, and after a game.  Your welcome :nod:

Edited by Thunderheads
  • Like 1
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

The Tejada play is different because the runner was obstructed before touching 3B, and he then decided to advance beyond 3B. He did so at his own risk, and because he was only protected to 3B the out stood.

With this play, the runner was obstructed after 2B, and he did not advance beyond the next base. I don't know how the conversation went, but somebody talked Joyce into ruling that the OBS would be nullified by awarding the runner 2B, not 3B. Since the OBS occurred beyond the awarded base, they protected him back in order to nullify the effect of the OBS.

basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

I have an out.  The umpires nullify the act of obstruction with the award, not the runner's reaction to the call of obstruction.  It's proper to call the obstruction before determining the award. 

 

7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.”

. . .

(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.

Rule 7.06(b) Comment:  Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call. 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.

 

  • Like 1
Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted (edited)

That's my line of thinking as well, basejester.

Is there an interpretation in OBR that prevents the obstructed runner from being put out between the bases he was obstructed such as in softball? I'm not aware of one myself.

Can we protect a runner back to second who is advancing to third?

It seems to me you either protect the runner to 3rd (which I think I would have done here) or you don't have obstruction based on the runner's reaction. This one has me perplexed.

This call is actually simpler in Fed. Go figure.

Edited by Welpe
MikeSafari

MikeSafari

Posted
Posted

It seems to me you either protect the runner to 3rd (which I think I would have done here) or you don't have obstruction based on the runner's reaction. This one has me perplexed.

​That's my understanding. I've never heard of protecting a runner "back" to a base.

I can understand making this call at lower levels, because sometimes people just stop whatever they're doing when we say something. At this level, though, sorry. He's out.

ZebraStripes

ZebraStripes

Posted
Posted

So was the PU's sweat-stained hat like that BEFORE he started the game or did that occur DURING?   I wrestle with this problem all season long.  Can't stand the white salt-wave on my hats. 

Too long of a conference between umpires (but ultimately, I think they got it right) and WAY WAY WAY too long talking with the coach after the decision. 

​Marvin is a Georgia boy and we do tend to do some serious sweating being from down here.

woodiemiller

woodiemiller

Posted
Posted

Type b, as there was no play on the runner when he was obstructed.

They changed the award to 2B, and protected him "back" on the grounds that he was already past 2B when he was obstructed.

​That makes NO SENSE at all. The obstruction occurred AFTER 2b & it looks like he was making his way to 3b. He should have been awarded 3b.

MikeSafari

MikeSafari

Posted
Posted

​That makes NO SENSE at all. The obstruction occurred AFTER 2b & it looks like he was making his way to 3b. He should have been awarded 3b.

​I disagree with the bolded part. He should have been protected for the few steps he was actually obstructed.

Looking at the video, I'd be inclined to give him generous obstruction protection--up to four or maybe even five full strides--but that hinges on him continuing on to third. He fell, but when he got back up made no attempt to continue on, meaning he's now lost my protection of those few strides.

DVA7130

DVA7130

Posted
Posted

A play like this is virtually the God rule.

He could get third.

He could get second.

He could be out.

Neither is wrong by rule, but that's why we are out there.

  • Like 1
Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

​I disagree with the bolded part. He should have been protected for the few steps he was actually obstructed.

​That does not seem to jibe with the obstruction rule. Protection is to a base per umpire judgment based upon the play, I don't see how you can protect a certain distance.

Can somebody go to the various interp manuals on this and see if there's something relevant to this discussion?

Johnny, I wish this is a protest that would have been heard. I'd like an official interpretation here to be sure.

  • Like 1
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...