3rd Base Obstruction- Sox Fan Conclusion

[uncfan103]

It is not a rule. An umpire can ask for help from another umpire at any time, for just about any reason. The other umpires can even go to that umpire and say, "hey, you missed that, you should change it." The latter part never happens though, as it breaks just about all umpire etiquette. But they can do it, even if they never do.

So, what you're saying is he never made a call until conferring with the other umpires, and it had nothing to do with John Farrell coming out there.

Rule 9.02a says that "Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final."

Also, umpires can't go tell an umpire he missed a call and should change it
"No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."

 

[Wazmankg]

Ok. So everyone seems to agree that it was the correct application of the rule but there's a lot of bitching about the rule itself along the lines of "What was Middlebrooks supposed to do ? He couldn't have possibly gotten out of the way fast enough." To which my answer is - too bad. Why should a fielder gain an advantage because the guy who threw him the ball made a bad throw and he couldn't catch it and wound up lying on his face in the basepath ? I don't see the problem. Make the play or gtfo of the way and if you can't too damn bad. You (and/or the guy who threw it to you) screwed up. Why should you be allowed to be an obstruction under those circumstances intentional or not ?

 

[uncfan103]

Ok. So everyone seems to agree that it was the correct application of the rule but there's a lot of bitching about the rule itself along the lines of "What was Middlebrooks supposed to do ? He couldn't have possibly gotten out of the way fast enough." To which my answer is - too bad. Why should a fielder gain an advantage because the guy who threw him the ball made a bad throw and he couldn't catch it and wound up lying on his face in the basepath ? I don't see the problem. Make the play or gtfo of the way and if you can't too damn bad. You (and/or the guy who threw it to you) screwed up. Why should you be allowed to be an obstruction under those circumstances intentional or not ?

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[Arch City]

Ok. So everyone seems to agree that it was the correct application of the rule but there's a lot of bitching about the rule itself along the lines of "What was Middlebrooks supposed to do ? He couldn't have possibly gotten out of the way fast enough." To which my answer is - too bad. Why should a fielder gain an advantage because the guy who threw him the ball made a bad throw and he couldn't catch it and wound up lying on his face in the basepath ? I don't see the problem. Make the play or gtfo of the way and if you can't too damn bad. You (and/or the guy who threw it to you) screwed up. Why should you be allowed to be an obstruction under those circumstances intentional or not ?

The rule seems straightforward to me. It's like the principle of how a tie goes to the runner. To put Rule 7.06 as simply as possible, the rights of the base runner supersede those of the fielder.

 

[apachef4]

So, what you're saying is he never made a call until conferring with the other umpires, and it had nothing to do with John Farrell coming out there.

Rule 9.02a says that "Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final."

Also, umpires can't go tell an umpire he missed a call and should change it
"No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."

"Final" in this case means that it can't be appealed. It doesn't mean that he can't seek help and change the decision he made prior. I did not mean to insinuate that he did not make a call and then sought help. He obviously made an out call there.

You are correct that your 3rd paragraph makes the whole thing dicey (good pull, btw...I did not remember that being in the book). However, they can easily get around it by saying that he sought the other umpires assistance, even if he didn't exactly do that. He said after the game that as soon as looked at the other members of his team he could see it in their eyes that he screwed up the call. Like I said, though, it could definitely be viewed as questionable if they came to him without him requesting the help. I have no idea if that's how it played out or not...though I'm sure they'll say that he did request it.

Ultimately they got the call right, though. Folks have been giving umpires shit (and rightly so) for being so aloof and stubborn when they get a call wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think baseball likes the new age of umpiring where they're willing to conference and get the call right.

 

[uncfan103]

"Final" in this case means that it can't be appealed. It doesn't mean that he can't seek help and change the decision he made prior. I did not mean to insinuate that he did not make a call and then sought help. He obviously made an out call there.

You are correct that your 3rd paragraph makes the whole thing dicey (good pull, btw...I did not remember that being in the book). However, they can easily get around it by saying that he sought the other umpires assistance, even if he didn't exactly do that. He said after the game that as soon as looked at the other members of his team he could see it in their eyes that he screwed up the call. Like I said, though, it could definitely be viewed as questionable if they came to him without him requesting the help. I have no idea if that's how it played out or not...though I'm sure they'll say that he did request it.

Ultimately they got the call right, though. Folks have been giving umpires shit (and rightly so) for being so aloof and stubborn when they get a call wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think baseball likes the new age of umpiring where they're willing to conference and get the call right.

Thanks, and I'm don't want to seem like I'm complaining, I was just interested in the interpretation of the rules. I'd much rather them get it right. I haven't had an issue with them all series. It's much better that they correct it to the right call rather than change the wrong call. I think the umps have had a good series, they haven't made any blunders and nobody is left questioning what would happen if the correct calls were made.