A Video on YouTube

[lawump]

On 1/11/2022 at 3:20 PM, udbrky said:

So jealous of states that can choose other colors.

[lawump]

On 1/13/2022 at 3:56 PM, Kevin_K said:

Many moons ago, one of the the more thoughtful and experienced members of this community, @JonnyCat, offered the group some insight that I have fallen back on many times. This play reminds me of that sage advice:

Use the rules book to solve problems rather than create them.

 

This is a great post.  

Another way to say this would be to state what Joe Brinkman said during week 1 of the 1997 Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School:  "Don't take the sh!tty end of the stick."

If there is some doubt as to whether or not the runner would have scored "but for" the obstruction which argument would you rather have after the play: (1) an argument with the defensive coach who is mad that you scored the run or (2) an argument with the offensive coach that you let the out stand???

Unless you are 100% sure that the runner would not have scored if he had not been obstructed, I am taking argument #1 every time.  I can handle this argument because I can end it every time with, "skip, if your player didn't screw up and obstruct the runner we wouldn't even be here!"  Electing to take argument #2 is "taking the sh!tty end of the stick."   Which leads to the second words of wisdom uttered by Mr. Brinkman during the first week of umpire school: "penalize the team that screwed up!"  His point was that if you penalize the team that screwed up you can always end the argument by saying, "skip, if your player didn't screw up I wouldn't have had to make that call!"

[conbo61]

15 hours ago, lawump said:

This is a great post.  

Another way to say this would be to state what Joe Brinkman said during week 1 of the 1997 Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School:  "Don't take the sh!tty end of the stick."

If there is some doubt as to whether or not the runner would have scored "but for" the obstruction which argument would you rather have after the play: (1) an argument with the defensive coach who is mad that you scored the run or (2) and argument with the offensive coach that you let the out stand???

Unless you are 100% sure that the runner would not have scored if he had not been obstructed, I am taking argument #1 every time.  I can handle this argument because I can end it every time with, "skip, if your player didn't screw up and obstruct the runner we wouldn't even be here!"  Electing to take argument #2 is "taking the sh!tty end of the stick."   Which leads to the second words of wisdom uttered by Mr. Brinkman during the first week of umpire school: "penalize the team that screwed up!"  His point was that if you penalize the team that screwed up you can always end the argument by saying, "skip, if your player didn't screw up I wouldn't have had to make that call!"

👆👆 THIS 👆👆

[johnnyg08]

On 1/11/2022 at 2:41 PM, Richvee said:

It’s been a long process here in NJ. I think we have got to the point where, when you hear “ I only have navy” from your partner you’re probably in for some interesting mechanics and interpretations. 

Same here

[johnnyg08]

I think the proper award here would be home. Too many folks are hesitant to make the proper award under the premise that they're penalizing the defense...well, yes, that's exactly what you're doing. R2 was hindered & impeded from accelerating which resulted in a very close play at the plate. R2 lost several steps. 

I only watched the clip a couple of times...and I did not notice either umpire signaling or acknowledging the obstruction. 

Follow up question:

There was a run down in this play as well. If we do have obstruction on this play and it involves awarding the runner Home...under NFHS rules, when should we call time? Do we let the rundown play out...IOW, still giving the defense the opportunity for additional outs? 

[ArchAngel72]

On 1/18/2022 at 4:39 PM, lawump said:

This is a great post.  

Another way to say this would be to state what Joe Brinkman said during week 1 of the 1997 Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School:  "Don't take the sh!tty end of the stick."

If there is some doubt as to whether or not the runner would have scored "but for" the obstruction which argument would you rather have after the play: (1) an argument with the defensive coach who is mad that you scored the run or (2) an argument with the offensive coach that you let the out stand???

Unless you are 100% sure that the runner would not have scored if he had not been obstructed, I am taking argument #1 every time.  I can handle this argument because I can end it every time with, "skip, if your player didn't screw up and obstruct the runner we wouldn't even be here!"  Electing to take argument #2 is "taking the sh!tty end of the stick."   Which leads to the second words of wisdom uttered by Mr. Brinkman during the first week of umpire school: "penalize the team that screwed up!"  His point was that if you penalize the team that screwed up you can always end the argument by saying, "skip, if your player didn't screw up I wouldn't have had to make that call!"

 

 

This post here is making a big dent in my thoughts on the situation.

 

SO...😳

 

Based on that 

The proper call at the plate would then be ??

Based on being on the other side of the argument now.

If I were the PU  

No call at home.  Call Time Point at F6  call obstruction point at runner and then State he gets home based on F6 obstruction

 

??

 

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

Go reference the play in the World Series with Jim Joyce at 3rd. That's exactly how the plate umpire did it. I think that mechanic would be fine. And easily understood that something strange happened to everyone watching.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

 

This post here is making a big dent in my thoughts on the situation.

 

SO...😳

 

Based on that 

The proper call at the plate would then be ??

Based on being on the other side of the argument now.

If I were the PU  

No call at home.  Call Time Point at F6  call obstruction point at runner and then State he gets home based on F6 obstruction

 

??

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

Go reference the play in the World Series with Jim Joyce at 3rd. That's exactly how the plate umpire did it. I think that mechanic would be fine. And easily understood that something strange happened to everyone watching.

No, ... don't watch that one because "technically"  (no, I'm not bashing a pro umpire) but technically... Dana DeMuth should have called "TIME" ... and not made a call at the plate.  Pointed at the OBS, ...THEN declared the r3 safe

There is a more recent OBS video somewhere featuring Nic Lentz and it's PEFECTION!  I'll try to find it .... ON EDIT: HERE IT IS!  SO BEAUTIFUL!

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

i forgot he didn't call time in that one. My bad. 

 

For sure the Lentz video is great.

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Follow up question:

There was a run down in this play as well. If we do have obstruction on this play and it involves awarding the runner Home...under NFHS rules, when should we call time? Do we let the rundown play out...IOW, still giving the defense the opportunity for additional outs? 

What  have always understood, in OBR and NCAA, we call time when the obstructed runner is played on, and we award/place other runners where they would have been had there been no obstruction. 

FED is delayed. Other runners can continue and advance or be put out at their own risk. 

If I have this wrong I really need to know. If I have it right...What's the proper call/Mechanic in a FED game for the PU to make when the play is being made on the obstructed runner? 

[Velho]

6 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

ON EDIT: HERE IT IS!  SO BEAUTIFUL!

You can get 2 OBS on that play! There's a judgement call OBS as he rounds 3B.

[lawump]

16 hours ago, Richvee said:

What  have always understood, in OBR and NCAA, we call time when the obstructed runner is played on, and we award/place other runners where they would have been had there been no obstruction. 

There is a sentence in the MLB Umpire's Manual which specifically states that if a play is made on the obstructed runner, and the umpire is still "protecting" the runner, then "time" should be called at that point.  It almost appears as a "throw away" sentence in the middle of the obstruction discussion in the Manual...but it is so, so important.

[johnnyg08]

16 minutes ago, lawump said:

There is a sentence in the MLB Umpire's Manual which specifically states that if a play is made on the obstructed runner, and the umpire is still "protecting" the runner, then "time" should be called at that point.  It almost appears as a "throw away" sentence in the middle of the obstruction discussion in the Manual...but it is so, so important.

Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. It's important. 

[Kevin_K]

23 hours ago, Richvee said:

What  have always understood, in OBR and NCAA, we call time when the obstructed runner is played on, and we award/place other runners where they would have been had there been no obstruction. 

FED is delayed. Other runners can continue and advance or be put out at their own risk. 

If I have this wrong I really need to know. If I have it right...What's the proper call/Mechanic in a FED game for the PU to make when the play is being made on the obstructed runner? 

 

6 hours ago, lawump said:

There is a sentence in the MLB Umpire's Manual which specifically states that if a play is made on the obstructed runner, and the umpire is still "protecting" the runner, then "time" should be called at that point.  It almost appears as a "throw away" sentence in the middle of the obstruction discussion in the Manual...but it is so, so important.

If the runner that a play is being made on is safe, is time still called?

[lawump]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

 

If the runner that a play is being made on is safe, is time still called?

Great question.  The answer is "no".  From page 39 of the 2019 MLB Umpire Manual, "...if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which such runner would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out."

[lawump]

Here is a video that close call sports did in September.  However, the game is from 2007.  I actually have had this video on my laptop for nearly 15-years as I use it every year when teaching the OBR obstruction rule.  There is actually several things that I use this video to teach: (1) That type 2 (formerly Type "B") obstruction is a delayed dead ball; (2) that a runner CAN be protected returning to a base (this is a concept that a lot of students struggle with); (3) that "time" should be called when the obstructed runner is tagged "out" while still protected.

[As an aside: I disagree with one aspect of the analysis by CCS on this video.  Towards the end of the video CCS states that the umpires must have decided that the obstruction caused the runner to become disoriented and not realize that the runner ahead had stopped at third and, thus, they decided to protect him back to second.  I disagree with that analysis.  As I was taught by Messrs. Dreckman and Nelson at umpire school it is actually a much simpler analysis than that.  An obstructed runner can be protected advancing or retreating.  In this specific play, the collision cost the runner several steps.  He was then thrown out at second base on a very bang-bang play.  Dreckman taught me to ask, "if the runner had the steps back that he lost to the obstruction would he had been safe?  If the answer is "yes" then protect him back to the base."  That is how professional umpires are taught to decide whether or not to protect a runner: if he had the steps given back to him, would he have been "safe"?  It doesn't matter whether or not the runner was advancing or retreating...and becoming disoriented and not realizing that a preceding runner had stopped is irrelevant.]

In the end, the umpires in this video got the call correct.  The only mistake they made is not calling "Time" when the obstructed runner was tagged out at second base.  If they had called "time" at that point, none of the other stuff would have occurred.  With that said, it was an easy fix to just go back and "undo" everything that occurred after the point at which "time" should have been called.

 

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, lawump said:

There is a sentence in the MLB Umpire's Manual which specifically states that if a play is made on the obstructed runner, and the umpire is still "protecting" the runner, then "time" should be called at that point.  It almost appears as a "throw away" sentence in the middle of the obstruction discussion in the Manual...but it is so, so important.

Thanks. Now to FED. Let’s say I’ve got a runner obstructed rounding 2nd and he’s headed home. He’s out on a bang bang play so he’s going to be awarded home on the obstruction. BR is rounding 2nd. FED tells us the ball remains live until “ the end of playing action” So, what do we signal/ call at the plate if BR is rounding 2B and F2 is attempting to throw BR  out after the play at the plate?  

When Obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of playing action and the umpire has authority to determine which base or bases shall be awarded the runners according to the rule violated

[lawump]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

Thanks. Now to FED. Let’s say I’ve got a runner obstructed rounding 2nd and he’s headed home. He’s out on a bang bang play so he’s going to be awarded home on the obstruction. BR is rounding 2nd. FED tells us the ball remains live until “ the end of playing action” So, what do we signal/ call at the plate if BR is rounding 2B and F2 is attempting to throw BR  out after the play at the plate?  

When Obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of playing action and the umpire has authority to determine which base or bases shall be awarded the runners according to the rule violated

I think the best we can do is to do what umpire schools teach us to do on a double play when you're the base umpire in a 2-man crew.  If you have an unusual play at second base (let's say you're going to call R1 safe because the middle infielder was off the bag), you cannot stop and sell that call.  Rather, you just have to signal and vocalize "safe", continue on to see the play at first base.  Then, after the call at first is complete, the base umpire can then loudly and aggressively turn and move back toward second base while selling the call at second base (for example, "safe, safe at second! You were off the bag!).  Its a little awkward until you be comfortable with it, but once you've done it a few times it becomes second nature.

With FED obstruction (and using your example of a bang-bang play at the plate where you are going to call the runner (who was tagged out) "safe" because of the obstruction, but there is further action): I think you have to do something similar.  I think you signal safe and vocalize loudly "safe on the obstruction!".  Then, when the play is entirely over, you come back and sell the hell out of the call...just like the MLB umpires did in two of the videos above (and just like a base umpire in a 2-man crew has to do to sell a call at second on a double-play).  "That was obstruction at second base on the runner! The runner scores on the obstruction!"  Sell the sh!t out of it at that point.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, lawump said:

 

With FED obstruction (and using your example of a bang-bang play at the plate where you are going to call the runner (who was tagged out) "safe" because of the obstruction, but there is further action): I think you have to do something similar.  I think you signal safe and vocalize loudly "safe on the obstruction!".  Then, when the play is entirely over, you come back and sell the hell out of the call...just like the MLB umpires did in two of the videos above (and just like a base umpire in a 2-man crew has to do to sell a call at second on a double-play).  "That was obstruction at second base on the runner! The runner scores on the obstruction!"  Sell the sh!t out of it at that point.

Agreed -- but I think I would point at the plate (with the verbal "safe on the OBS") rather than a safe sign.  The former indicates an award (which this is); the latter indicates a play result and could be misinterpreted as a missed tag or the runner beating the tag and lead to some kerfuffle that would need to be diffused.

[lawump]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Agreed -- but I think I would point at the plate (with the verbal "safe on the OBS") rather than a safe sign.  The former indicates an award (which this is); the latter indicates a play result and could be misinterpreted as a missed tag or the runner beating the tag and lead to some kerfuffle that would need to be diffused.

The more I think about it, I think I would do both.  I would point at the plate, and then give a safe signal.  I could be wrong, but I think there is a video somewhere where Dan Bellino used this very mechanic it I thought it looked like a million bucks.  

However, the video above in Cleveland looked pretty damn sharp, too. 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, lawump said:

The more I think about it, I think I would do both.  I would point at the plate, and then give a safe signal.  I could be wrong, but I think there is a video somewhere where Dan Bellino used this very mechanic it I thought it looked like a million bucks.  

However, the video above in Cleveland looked pretty damn sharp, too. 

I would think that the Cleveland video is all you need.  The TIME mechanic gets everyone's attention .... then sell the hell out of it!

[lawump]

41 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I would think that the Cleveland video is all you need.  The TIME mechanic gets everyone's attention .... then sell the hell out of it!

I knew I could find it.  I like this...the point and the safe:

 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, lawump said:

I knew I could find it.  I like this...the point and the safe:

 

Oh yeah!!  OK! Yeah ... that's great too!!!!!!!!!

[Richvee]

Good stuff guys! 

[Kali]

I think we miss the issue here.  It isn't "was that Obstruction or not" as it clearly was.  But how should the umpires have worked so they actually saw it?  This was a bounding ball to the outfield so, after the ball skipped the first time, there was no longer a catch/no-catch responsibility from the Base Umpire.  The ball wasn't close to the foul line, so there was no fair/foul on the Plate Umpire.  At this point, both umpires have the responsibility to "glance at runners" .  Plate takes R3 as he touches home and should also pick up the BR as he touches 1st since he knows the Base Umpire is on the ball coming in from left.  The Base Umpire really has the responsibility to see R2 as he literally pushes his way past the short stop.  You can't have your "eyes everlastingly on the ball" it's "chest to ball, glance at runners".  As far as the award, it's really simpler than you guys are making it out.  You call "Obstruction" when you see it, then watch the play.  When you see how close it was at the plate, you award him home.  If he was out by a mile, you don't.  It's just that easy.  I know you've all been taught to make up your minds how far to protect the runner the instant you see obstruction but there's really no reason to.  Give yourself some time.