Opinions on an umpires call that decided a game

[Turnadouble]

Just an observation, but in the picture, it looks like the catcher's left leg is "blocking" home plate, therefore not "allowing" the runner to touch the base.

 

She does have her leg blocking but she also has the ball. If you have the ball you don't have to "allow" the runner to do anything. This is with out a doubt a very close play and I'm sure the ump had to make a quick decision. Seeing this picture we can analyze it but in real time it's not always that easy.

[ForrestFan]

Good friend Cascade11 (of course my best friend is birdman) what you have stated is some what true but the school normally appoints the coach as the school administrator for the game if they can not make it and most of the time they can not make it. But in this case the ump walked over to the fan and told him he was gone or his team would forfeit the game! We may not be talking about the same ump because this ump is short, stocky and has been umping for more years than most of us have been living! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

 

I do not think he realizes it is time to put his counter down and go off into the sunset. I have heard he is a great guy at his old job but when he gets on the field it is ONLY his way! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" /> Just like it is with /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />"Birdie" her way on no way but she is a good woman to me! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

 

I bet the umpire you are talking about is from Eagleville. He can be a real jerk sometimes!

[midtnblu]

I guess I can always expect to be corrected and I don't mind it's good to see people who love the game as much as I do. I apologize for my older interpretation as I drew on my old school days for that one... The term "plow" is all a matter of interpretation and the runner does have a right to the basepath, so long as they are not lowering a shoulder, bull-doging the catcher, or chopping at the ball the runner can run through the player impeding the basepath. So my original statement stands on that one, the players are playing at a high level and fast pace, I would never ask a player to slow up because a catcher is standing in the base path.

 

Based on the photo I can see two things, 1) The runner was trying to do exactly that but did so half heartedly and 2) The catcher clearly has the ball with the runner a step from the plate but I would say based on the current rules as quoted in this thread that the call could go either way. I don't like it but I can see it using those rules. Hard to expect a cathcer to play home like a 1st baseman.

 

 

NO! Running through a defensive player, could be ruled malicious contact and an automatic ejection. The option for the runner in this case is to avoid contact and let the umpire rule obstruction (delayed dead ball) if the runner's advancement was impeded.

 

Now back to the OP...It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid. If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher, I'm not bailing the runner out of this. If she runs full speed and slides she probably beats the throw. Sliding will result in contact, maybe just enough to "distract" the catcher and prevent the catch.

 

Yes, this is a HTBT play, but just giving an opinion based on the picture.

[stlbrd]

NO! Running through a defensive player, could be ruled malicious contact and an automatic ejection. The option for the runner in this case is to avoid contact and let the umpire rule obstruction (delayed dead ball) if the runner's advancement was impeded.

 

Now back to the OP...It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid. If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher, I'm not bailing the runner out of this. If she runs full speed and slides she probably beats the throw. Sliding will result in contact, maybe just enough to "distract" the catcher and prevent the catch.

Yes, this is a HTBT play, but just giving an opinion based on the picture.

 

Finally, someone hits the nail on the head! Might also take her feet from under her and off the plate.

[joeyT]

If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher, I'm not bailing the runner out of this. If she runs full speed and slides she probably beats the throw. Sliding will result in contact, maybe just enough to "distract" the catcher and prevent the catch.

 

If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher that is the EXACT definition of obstruction. You aren't bailing anybody you would be enforcing the rules. Clinic time maybe?

[midtnblu]

If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher that is the EXACT definition of obstruction. You aren't bailing anybody you would be enforcing the rules. Clinic time maybe?

 

 

 

Depending on where the catcher is....I'm not protecting the runner by ruling obstruction against a catcher that is standing on the plate. What is she obstructing the runner from, continuing on to the dugout?

 

If she slowed down to avoid contact with the catcher who was on the plate then that's the runner's fault and again I'm not protecting that. Run hard and don't be afraid to get your shorts dirty.

 

This is all assuming the catcher is on/at the plate and the runner has a path to a portion of the plate, not up the line "impeding the path" of the runner.

 

If the catcher is up the line then that's a different sitch altogether.

 

By the way...this is a good discussion, don't get chippy.

[joeyT]

Depending on where the catcher is....I'm not protecting the runner by ruling obstruction against a catcher that is standing on the plate. What is she obstructing the runner from, continuing on to the dugout?

 

If she slowed down to avoid contact with the catcher who was on the plate then that's the runner's fault and again I'm not protecting that. Run hard and don't be afraid to get your shorts dirty.

 

This is all assuming the catcher is on/at the plate and the runner has a path to a portion of the plate, not up the line "impeding the path" of the runner.

 

If the catcher is up the line then that's a different sitch altogether.

 

By the way...this is a good discussion, don't get chippy.

 

That isn't what you said. you said "It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid." There might be some disagreement from the picture exactly when the plate was blocked and when the catcher caught the ball and you can't tell form the picture if the runner slowed down but the plate is blocked. Now you are saying standing on top of the plate. You changed the discussion from one post to the other and added to the rules. And if she slowed down to avoid contact with the catcher THAT IS NOT THE RUNNER"S FAULT THAT IS THE EXACT DEFINITION OF OBSTRUCTION. You have to protect that. It is the rule and it's your job and it is never your job to decide that a runner should slide. Maybe I am getting chippy. Lots of people are confused by obstruction rules in the first place and then an umpire gets on here and starts telling runners to slide and that they don't protect them if they slow down when the rules and umpire manuals describe slowing down as impeding the runner as text book obstruction. Why do I suspect that you also have your "own" strike zone that is different from the written rules too. Let me guess. Anything over the belt is a ball because it is too high for "your" strikezone. Now you got chippy.

[midtnblu]

That isn't what you said. you said "It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid." There might be some disagreement from the picture exactly when the plate was blocked and when the catcher caught the ball and you can't tell form the picture if the runner slowed down but the plate is blocked. Now you are saying standing on top of the plate. You changed the discussion from one post to the other and added to the rules. And if she slowed down to avoid contact with the catcher THAT IS NOT THE RUNNER"S FAULT THAT IS THE EXACT DEFINITION OF OBSTRUCTION. You have to protect that. It is the rule and it's your job and it is never your job to decide that a runner should slide. Maybe I am getting chippy. Lots of people are confused by obstruction rules in the first place and then an umpire gets on here and starts telling runners to slide and that they don't protect them if they slow down when the rules and umpire manuals describe slowing down as impeding the runner as text book obstruction. Why do I suspect that you also have your "own" strike zone that is different from the written rules too. Let me guess. Anything over the belt is a ball because it is too high for "your" strikezone. Now you got chippy.

 

 

Joey...put down the energy drink.... I said "assuming" the catcher was on/at the plate, and that it would be different if the catcher was up the line.

 

I never said the runner should slide, in fact it is not required by the rulebook. I just offered that if there is a slide, alot of this would have been avoided(I guess I had on my coaches hat for that one).

 

 

And lots of people are confused by all of the rules not just obstruction calls. In a perfect world everyone knows the rules like you and we don't have to go on a message board and try to give a little insight/opinion when there are situations like this.

 

And if an umpire calls a strike at the top of the zone "as defined by the rule book" we wouldn't be discussing obstruction call on here would we?

 

Done.

[joeyT]

Joey...put down the energy drink.... I said "assuming" the catcher was on/at the plate, and that it would be different if the catcher was up the line.

 

I never said the runner should slide, in fact it is not required by the rulebook. I just offered that if there is a slide, alot of this would have been avoided(I guess I had on my coaches hat for that one).

 

 

And lots of people are confused by all of the rules not just obstruction calls. In a perfect world everyone knows the rules like you and we don't have to go on a message board and try to give a little insight/opinion when there are situations like this.

 

And if an umpire calls a strike at the top of the zone "as defined by the rule book" we wouldn't be discussing obstruction call on here would we?

 

Done.

 

Don't drink the things. My point is your stuff not only created more havock but changed when confronted for more confusion and nobody will even figure out the right rules. I guess from your response I was right. You have your own special strikezone and pitchers and batters just have to figure it out when you show up behind the plate instead of learning the rules. So now we know that rulebook obstruction isn't really obstruction and a rulebook strike isn't really a strike when you umpire. What other special rules do you use because you know better than the people who write and approve the rule books. Do you publish your personal rule book anywherre so we can at least read through it and know what to expect before you show up to call one of our games?

[riverdaleman]

NO! Running through a defensive player, could be ruled malicious contact and an automatic ejection. The option for the runner in this case is to avoid contact and let the umpire rule obstruction (delayed dead ball) if the runner's advancement was impeded.

 

Now back to the OP...It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid. If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher, I'm not bailing the runner out of this. If she runs full speed and slides she probably beats the throw. Sliding will result in contact, maybe just enough to "distract" the catcher and prevent the catch.

 

Yes, this is a HTBT play, but just giving an opinion based on the picture.

 

I respectfully disagree with you...in my opinion you have put that runner ina catch 22 if she goes hard and there is hard contact she is out if she eases up to avoid the contact she is out the fielder cannot block any part of the bag or plate without the ball and by that picture i see a batter bracing herself for it and i can see where that call might have been made...Let me put it this way if a umpire makes that call then there is some MERIT to it because it is easier to make the out call in that situation than the one he made. So to have made that call he saw something DEFINATE!!!he calls out and neither team says anything but making the call he makes he knows he is going to have a discussion so he better have seen something to defend himself with it.

[coltsrule]

I bet the umpire you are talking about is from Eagleville. He can be a real jerk sometimes!

 

No. I found out who it was last night. He is from Shelbyville, and is actually an employee of the Beford Co. school system. He has the reputation as a very competent official in both basketball and softball. He may have just made a mistake on this play. It happens.

[midtnblu]

Don't drink the things. My point is your stuff not only created more havock but changed when confronted for more confusion and nobody will even figure out the right rules. I guess from your response I was right. You have your own special strikezone and pitchers and batters just have to figure it out when you show up behind the plate instead of learning the rules. So now we know that rulebook obstruction isn't really obstruction and a rulebook strike isn't really a strike when you umpire. What other special rules do you use because you know better than the people who write and approve the rule books. Do you publish your personal rule book anywherre so we can at least read through it and know what to expect before you show up to call one of our games?

 

 

 

If you would reread the posts, I said it was all determined by where the catcher was standing. That, my friend, can be interpreted from the rule book.

 

And I based my opinion assuming the catcher was on the plate, not up the line. If you would go back and read, you would see this.

 

One more time for Joey

 

1. On the plate----no obstruction and if the runner goes through the catcher you may have malicious contact. Also, you could possibly get a DP if the umpire judged that another runner could have been retired by the catcher at another base. In this case it would be the runner closest to home. (this is similar to calling the batter/runner out at first for R1 interfering with a middle infielder trying to turn a double play.

 

2. Catcher up the line/in the path of the runner without the ball----obstruction, delayed dead ball (call time at end of all playing action or when a play is made on the obstructed runner), runner is awarded the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction.

 

Now in #2 above, of the runner decides to malicously run into the catcher, even though the catcher is in the path, then you would not have obstruction as malicious contact supercedes obstruction. The runner would be called out and ejected.