Very weird type 1 obstruction play, Brewers manager ejected

[Gfoley4]

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2016/09/04/1134692983/1473014662850/asset_2500K.mp4

I'll admit I didn't watch the full video in its entirety. But I believe this ended with R1 ending up on third base and the B/R at first. Thoughts? 

[Stk004]

15 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2016/09/04/1134692983/1473014662850/asset_2500K.mp4

I'll admit I didn't watch the full video in its entirety. But I believe this ended with R1 ending up on third base and the B/R at first. Thoughts? 

I don't understand why runners were put on the corners. 

@maven , this is the sort of OBS I was talking about in the other thread, with a thrown ball going by the fielder. 

[Stk004]

21 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2016/09/04/1134692983/1473014662850/asset_2500K.mp4

I'll admit I didn't watch the full video in its entirety. But I believe this ended with R1 ending up on third base and the B/R at first. Thoughts? 

Never mind. It's rule 6.01(h)(7.06) 

[johnpatrick]

I would have had a train wreck in this situation.  Am I the only one?

If there was ever a case for mute, this was it.  He even READ the rule and glanced over the part where the ball is dead.

[Lindsay]

All the relevant rules (including the MLBUM interpretation) are here:

http://www.closecallsports.com/2016/09/mlb-ejection-151-brian-gorman-3-craig.html

Suffice it to say....

Broadcasters after the play occurred: "The ball is live."

Broadcaster reads the rule: "The ball is dead."

[Jimurray]

I think they should have judged that Garcia would have scored absent the obstruction as that is actually what happened when they didn't kill the ball when they should have. 

[Stk004]

24 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I think they should have judged that Garcia would have scored absent the obstruction as that is actually what happened when they didn't kill the ball when they should have. 

F3 was the one who retrieved the ball and threw it to F2. So had the obstruction not occured he would've gotten to it faster and R1 would have likely stayed at 3B.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I think....

You're entitled to your opinion.

The ball is dead, the BR is awarded 1B, and R1, who had rounded 2B at TOO, was awarded 3B.

He might have scored without the OBS; he definitely would have achieved 3B. Hence the award of 3B.

[Jimurray]

54 minutes ago, maven said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

The ball is dead, the BR is awarded 1B, and R1, who had rounded 2B at TOO, was awarded 3B.

He might have scored without the OBS; he definitely would have achieved 3B. Hence the award of 3B.

Ok then I think somebody is missing a base on that play. R1 or BR. I didn't see the whole crew get together to decide the runner placement and I don't trust. Gorman's rules knowledge.

[basejester]

3 hours ago, Stk004 said:

F3 was the one who retrieved the ball and threw it to F2. So had the obstruction not occured he would've gotten to it faster and R1 would have likely stayed at 3B.

The act of obstruction is the fielder standing in the runner's path without the ball.  The collision isn't necessary for obstruction.

It's very odd to me that we would consider the ill-effects of obstruction to the defense (who committed the offense) in determining the penalty.  Does that not offend your sense of fair play?

[basejester]

2 hours ago, maven said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

The ball is dead, the BR is awarded 1B, and R1, who had rounded 2B at TOO, was awarded 3B.

He might have scored without the OBS; he definitely would have achieved 3B. Hence the award of 3B.

Where do you get the idea that the defense should get the benefit of the doubt on obstruction awards? 

 

[maven]

1 minute ago, basejester said:

Where do you get the idea that the defense should get the benefit of the doubt on obstruction awards?

Where do you get the idea that I got such an idea?

The award for OBS is the base the runner WOULD have achieved without the OBS, not the one he might have achieved. That's umpire judgment, but the language is conservative.

[basejester]

37 minutes ago, maven said:

Where do you get the idea that I got such an idea?

I read your comment.  You repeat that sentiment below, so I can't fathom why you object to my inference.

Quote

The award for OBS is the base the runner WOULD have achieved without the OBS, not the one he might have achieved. That's umpire judgment, but the language is conservative.

I think you're reading something into "WOULD" that's not there.  What's my disincentive as a defense for constantly committing minor type 2/B obstruction if the runners will be granted only the bases they would certainly have reached absent the obstruction?  The implication is a game that looks little like baseball.

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, basejester said:

The act of obstruction is the fielder standing in the runner's path without the ball.  The collision isn't necessary for obstruction.

It's very odd to me that we would consider the ill-effects of obstruction to the defense (who committed the offense) in determining the penalty.  Does that not offend your sense of fair play?

I had the same notion. However, if the runners are entitled to the base they would have reached had the obstruction not occurred, in my judgement, R1 would not have scored without the OBS. 

[Lindsay]

Today's play is analogous to coming across evidence in contravention of criminal procedure—maybe a defendant wasn't Mirandized, maybe it was without warrant or probable cause—the point is that in a court of law, evidence that is collected improperly gets thrown out.

This is what we have here. The play should have been killed immediately on the obstruction A, and the rulebook/procedure states the umpire is to essentially employ nullify-the-act principles for R1 and at least one base from that last touched for B1, to be enforced from the moment of the dead ball. Thus, all the action that happens after the ball should be dead at the moment of obstruction—R1 rounding third and sliding home, B1 being thrown out at second—is effectively evidence that has been collected improperly. That's not how it works. By rule for OBS A, the play is dead immediately when it happens (the sole exception being a wild throw in flight at the time of OBS A that goes into DBT for a mandatory two-base award).

Thus, the improperly collected evidence—in this case, R1 scoring and B1 being thrown out at second—by rule must be thrown out. It is only proper for the umpire to enforce the OBS A award from the time of the obstruction and dead ball, based only on the immediate action (and information) at that point and perhaps the immediate aftermath, but certainly not an entire 90+ft of running later.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Gil said:

Today's play is analogous to coming across evidence in contravention of criminal procedure—maybe a defendant wasn't Mirandized, maybe it was without warrant or probable cause—the point is that in a court of law, evidence that is collected improperly gets thrown out.

This is what we have here. The play should have been killed immediately on the obstruction A, and the rulebook/procedure states the umpire is to essentially employ nullify-the-act principles for R1 and at least one base from that last touched for B1, to be enforced from the moment of the dead ball. Thus, all the action that happens after the ball should be dead at the moment of obstruction—R1 rounding third and sliding home, B1 being thrown out at second—is effectively evidence that has been collected improperly. That's not how it works. By rule for OBS A, the play is dead immediately when it happens (the sole exception being a wild throw in flight at the time of OBS A that goes into DBT for a mandatory two-base award).

Thus, the improperly collected evidence—in this case, R1 scoring and B1 being thrown out at second—by rule must be thrown out. It is only proper for the umpire to enforce the OBS A award from the time of the obstruction and dead ball, based only on the immediate action (and information) at that point and perhaps the immediate aftermath, but certainly not an entire 90+ft of running later.

I still think one base award was missed in this play, be it R1 or the BR.

[Jimurray]

Given that the umpires did not kill the ball as the rule provides, maybe further evidence should be allowed? That was a goat rope. Gorman is not a rules guru.

[HuskerUmp22]

Is anybody questioning whether it was obstruction or not? Obviously I know the umpires called obstruction after they got together, but what did F3 do to warrant the obstruction? He was in the act of fielding the ball.

[Stk004]

26 minutes ago, HuskerUmp22 said:

Is anybody questioning whether it was obstruction or not? Obviously I know the umpires called obstruction after they got together, but what did F3 do to warrant the obstruction? He was in the act of fielding the ball.

He moved into the runners path to receive a thrown ball. F3 isn't liable for OBS while moving to receive/receiving a thrown ball, but I'd like clarification on what happens if he fails to catch the thrown ball. 

[basejester]

15 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

He moved into the runners path to receive a thrown ball. F3 isn't liable for OBS while moving to receive/receiving a thrown ball, but I'd like clarification on what happens if he fails to catch the thrown ball. 

If he doesn't catch the ball, then he is liable to obstruct immediately, e.g., Cardinals vs. Red Sox 2013 G3.

 

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, basejester said:

If he doesn't catch the ball, then he is liable to obstruct immediately, e.g., Cardinals vs. Red Sox 2013 G3.

 

If F5 doesn't kick his legs up, but instead lies flat on the ground and Rwhatever trips over him, do we still have OBS?

[basejester]

2 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

If F5 doesn't kick his legs up, but instead lies flat on the ground and Rwhatever trips over him, do we still have OBS?

Yes. 

[Mister B]

Why is it OBS? The runner was not in the running lane and F3 was receiving a thrown ball. 

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, Mister B said:

Why is it OBS? The runner was not in the running lane and F3 was receiving a thrown ball. 

The runner being in the running lane is irrelevant because he doesn't interfere with F3 receiving the thrown ball. I suppose F3 is no longer considered in the act of receiving the thrown ball once the ball has passed him?

[maven]

9 hours ago, basejester said:

I think you're reading something into "WOULD" that's not there.  What's my disincentive as a defense for constantly committing minor type 2/B obstruction if the runners will be granted only the bases they would certainly have reached absent the obstruction?  The implication is a game that looks little like baseball.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The umpire must determine what bases the runners would reach without the OBS. That's the only relevant sense of "would": modal auxiliary verbs don't require a lot of interpretation on their own, at least not by native speakers of the language.

You disagree with the umpire's award in this case. Fine. Next question.