The catcher was blocking the plate without posession of the ball... so even if they had video replay he's safe... the Rockies win. Man, what a game.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
T-S,
That's what I was thinking.
Man, I thought it was over after the Hairston homer.
That's what I was thinking.
Man, I thought it was over after the Hairston homer.
The ball was on the way and it was a bang-bang play and he was ouuuuuuut. Their is no excuse not to have instant replay in baseball for certain plays ex: HR, PLAYS AT PLATE, FOUL OR FAIR ON LINE. The point is always to get the call right.
Now go Phillies my boy hood team....
Now go Phillies my boy hood team....
I wish your Phillies well RYNO.
I have to disagree with you on the use of instant replay anywhere on the baseball field. Umpires do their best and they get the call right far more often than not certainly, but the missed calls and the inconsistencies, although frustrating, are a part of the game and these foibles should remain a part of the game.
I have to disagree with you on the use of instant replay anywhere on the baseball field. Umpires do their best and they get the call right far more often than not certainly, but the missed calls and the inconsistencies, although frustrating, are a part of the game and these foibles should remain a part of the game.
Please explain how he was out when catcher was blocking the plate without the ball-never had possession until he ran over and picked it up. Replay would've shown that and the run would have been allowed.
If it's okay for the catcher to block home then why can't the first baseman block first base on a ground ball? ss/2b on a steal?
BTW, on the play at home last night-if the RF'r had any arm at all the play would not have been close-he threw a rainbow from short right field and still short-hopped the catcher.
I've never understood why it's necessary for a catcher to "block" home plate in order to make a tag when all the other fielders can make tags without blocking their bases. Once the mitt(with ball) touches the runner he's out-blocking the runner from reaching home doesn't make him any MORE out!
JMO
If it's okay for the catcher to block home then why can't the first baseman block first base on a ground ball? ss/2b on a steal?
BTW, on the play at home last night-if the RF'r had any arm at all the play would not have been close-he threw a rainbow from short right field and still short-hopped the catcher.
I've never understood why it's necessary for a catcher to "block" home plate in order to make a tag when all the other fielders can make tags without blocking their bases. Once the mitt(with ball) touches the runner he's out-blocking the runner from reaching home doesn't make him any MORE out!
JMO
You're right Moc1...he's not more out, but he still could be far out! 
Moc1 - sent you a pm thanks.
GW- 
CD-Got it.
CD-Got it.
quote:Originally posted by Moc1:
BTW, on the play at home last night-if the RF'r had any arm at all the play would not have been close-he threw a rainbow from short right field and still short-hopped the catcher.
JMO
I see many weak arms these days from MLB outfielders, especially from RF. Maybe it has to do with the "speed tool" fascination.
Looks like they prefer a 70 runner with a 30 arm?
How many power arms do you see at the HS and college level ?
Not many !!!
Not many !!!
OS, I think it has more to do with the emphasis on O in favor of a balance with D. You can see some shakey defense from corner OFers with serious slugging percentages.
If the IFers were wearing the same equipment as the catchers, we'd see as much blocking of bases as we do blocking of home.
If the IFers were wearing the same equipment as the catchers, we'd see as much blocking of bases as we do blocking of home
.
OS-Really! Where are all the Roberto Clementes or the Rocky Colavitos? Francoer has a decent arm and so does Vlad but you may be right-speed vs arm. I'll bet San Diego wishes they had had an ARM in right last night.
And since we're talking about arms-they're not only weak but innaccurate as well. I've never seen so many off-line throws(by a wide margin) from not-so-great distances.
And since we're talking about arms-they're not only weak but innaccurate as well. I've never seen so many off-line throws(by a wide margin) from not-so-great distances.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
How many power arms do you see at the HS and college level ?
Not many !!!
Thats why every showcased HS outfielder you see on their respective web profiles has 89-95 mph off the hand???
I have a good grasp on what a power arm from the outfield looks like
, and you are correct, there are a few.It just seemed like there were many more "back in the day".
Ah, but back to the original comment. The ball was in flight to the catcher so the catcher was 'in the act of fielding the ball'. I believe, by MLB rules, that it would not have constituted obstruction.
I also think the earlier hr was a hr and not a double.
The umps givith and the umps taketh away. Both calls were on exceedingly close plays.
I also think the earlier hr was a hr and not a double.
The umps givith and the umps taketh away. Both calls were on exceedingly close plays.
7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction."
(a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls "Time," with both hands overhead. The ball is immediately dead when this signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flight before the obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners are to be awarded such bases on wild throws as they would have been awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where a runner was trapped between second and third and obstructed by the third baseman going into third base while the throw is in flight from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout the obstructed runner is to be awarded home base. Any other runners on base in this situation would also be awarded two bases from the base they last legally touched before obstruction was called.
(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. 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.
(a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls "Time," with both hands overhead. The ball is immediately dead when this signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flight before the obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners are to be awarded such bases on wild throws as they would have been awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where a runner was trapped between second and third and obstructed by the third baseman going into third base while the throw is in flight from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout the obstructed runner is to be awarded home base. Any other runners on base in this situation would also be awarded two bases from the base they last legally touched before obstruction was called.
(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. 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.
I think the ball got to the catcher before the runner got to the plate but because it long hopped the catcher, he did field it cleanly.
Yahoo sports has a great picture of the play at home but I could not get the link to work...
As for the ball off of the yellow padding, it looked like it hit the transition of the yellow padding and the harder fence causing it to bounce back onto the field unlike the one latter in the game where it bounced on the top of the yellow padding and went over.
The plate umpire was driving everyone crazy all night with his slow calls strikes, but when he took his time to call the play at the plate was the worst; he should have waited to see if the catcher had the ball, but he missed the fact that the runner did not touch the plate!
Yahoo sports has a great picture of the play at home but I could not get the link to work...
As for the ball off of the yellow padding, it looked like it hit the transition of the yellow padding and the harder fence causing it to bounce back onto the field unlike the one latter in the game where it bounced on the top of the yellow padding and went over.
The plate umpire was driving everyone crazy all night with his slow calls strikes, but when he took his time to call the play at the plate was the worst; he should have waited to see if the catcher had the ball, but he missed the fact that the runner did not touch the plate!
OK, OS, you showed me yours, so I'll show you mine....
From MLB Official Rules, definition of terms:
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.
Official Rules MLB
From MLB Official Rules, definition of terms:
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.
Official Rules MLB
Yes, Catcher can block the home before to catch the ball if the throw is right there (almost ban-ban play), and no, the runner never touched home plate.
Also the ruled dobble, was a clear homerun.
Also the ruled dobble, was a clear homerun.
This has been buggin' me all day, now. I read rule 7.06 and then went to check the definition of Obstruction.
I think the note at the bottom of 7.06 trumps. It deals with this specific circumstance: catcher, without the ball in his possession...
I think the note at the bottom of 7.06 trumps. It deals with this specific circumstance: catcher, without the ball in his possession...
...and then I re-read it further and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball 
Keep reading, infidel, it also says "catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand." Fielders (even catchers ) have the right to be set up when the ball is on its way.
) have the right to be set up when the ball is on its way.
Maybe...
VICINITY CALL.
It works for the opposite end of the diamond on DPs.
(Beat cha' to it, Orlando. )
VICINITY CALL.
It works for the opposite end of the diamond on DPs.
(Beat cha' to it, Orlando.
)
Ball beats runner. No obstruction here.
quote:Originally posted by spizzlepop:
Ball beats runner. No obstruction here.
Perhaps...
but notes in the definition of Obstruction state: After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball.
I'm just splitting hairs (or is it hares) here, but the picture clearly shows the catcher missed his attempt to field the ball and is now obstructing. It's only microseconds...
I'm not trying to prove a point, just illustrate the complexity (and increase my K point total.
)p.s. Nice photo find, Spizz.
quote:Originally posted by infidel_08:
Perhaps...
but notes in the definition of Obstruction state: After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball.
I'm just splitting hairs (or is it hares) here, but the picture clearly shows the catcher missed his attempt to field the ball and is now obstructing. It's only microseconds...
I'm not trying to prove a point, just illustrate the complexity (and increase my K point total.
p.s. Nice photo find, Spizz.
LOL. I'd bet that catcher is STILL trying to field that ball.
I'm betting he's still trying to figure out why (knowing that he was blockingtheplateobstructing and that, therefore, there was a good chance Holliday missed the plate) he didn't grab that ball, apply a tag, and protest....vigorously, even.
Bennet has definately lost his chance at this year's "AJ Piersynski Quick Thinking Award"
Bennet has definately lost his chance at this year's "AJ Piersynski Quick Thinking Award"
Who is Bennet?
C'mon TR...I can't believe you...with all of your musical knowledge...missed this one! Who is Bennett?
Who is Bennett? quote:Originally posted by Moc1:
Please explain how he was out when catcher was blocking the plate without the ball-never had possession until he ran over and picked it up. Replay would've shown that and the run would have been allowed.
If it's okay for the catcher to block home then why can't the first baseman block first base on a ground ball? ss/2b on a steal?
BTW, on the play at home last night-if the RF'r had any arm at all the play would not have been close-he threw a rainbow from short right field and still short-hopped the catcher.
I've never understood why it's necessary for a catcher to "block" home plate in order to make a tag when all the other fielders can make tags without blocking their bases. Once the mitt(with ball) touches the runner he's out-blocking the runner from reaching home doesn't make him any MORE out!
JMO
My take is that a catcher's blocks the plate because he is trying to prevent a RUN from scoring vs. the other fielders are trying to prevent a runner from advancing a base..............
What's done is done....but the umpire did not declare obstruction did he?
But yet he called the runner safe?
And from the replays I saw, it appeared that Halliday never touched the plate.
Therefore, how could he be called safe unless the umpire ruled obstruction?
(Sorry, I have been busy at work all day. Just saw the game last night and have not had a chance to read up/re-watch the play...
But yet he called the runner safe?
And from the replays I saw, it appeared that Halliday never touched the plate.
Therefore, how could he be called safe unless the umpire ruled obstruction?
(Sorry, I have been busy at work all day. Just saw the game last night and have not had a chance to read up/re-watch the play...
Couple people on my floor and I were arguing about this play. I'm not sure if his hand didn't catch the very corner of the plate before getting his hand stepped on.
About the throw, it looked like it came out weird. And I give you one super-strong outfield arm-- Rick Ankiel!
About the throw, it looked like it came out weird. And I give you one super-strong outfield arm
-- Rick Ankiel!quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
Who is Bennet?
Do excuse the error, I meant Barrett (sp, TR?). Gee, I must remember to doublecheck in future so as not to confuse the issue. Do I get any credit for "Piersynski"?
jb, maybe the umpire (May I call him McClelland without looking it up, or can we all get this from context?
) thought he touched the plate. Maybe he was waiting to see how the players reacted --- try to get back to the plate (runner), lay down an immediate tag (catcher). Alas, it's immaterial now -- and yes, Bulldog, that was a rainbow throw IMO, too. 
But that's not why the Pads lost --- they put out arguably the NL's best pitcher on full rest, perhaps got the benefit of that hr/double call, and closed with a veteran. (OK, a veteran pitching BP...but doesn't he have a gajillion saves?)
On the night, they just couldn't do it. Heck of a game.
I have been watching and looks like he never touched the plate. Why the hesitation on the umpire?
I do also think it was a HR, so IMO as it should be in baseball, one questionable bad call deserves a questionable good call.
I do also think it was a HR, so IMO as it should be in baseball, one questionable bad call deserves a questionable good call.
"Why the hesitation on the umpire?"
Did you see his punch outs? He gave the on deck batter enough time to dig in and take some warm ups at the plate before calling out the previous batter!
Did you see his punch outs? He gave the on deck batter enough time to dig in and take some warm ups at the plate before calling out the previous batter!
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
Who is Bennet?
Do excuse the error, I meant Barrett (sp, TR?). Gee, I must remember to doublecheck in future so as not to confuse the issue. Do I get any credit for "Piersynski"?
jb, maybe the umpire (May I call him McClelland without looking it up, or can we all get this from context?
But that's not why the Pads lost --- they put out arguably the NL's best pitcher on full rest, perhaps got the benefit of that hr/double call, and closed with a veteran. (OK, a veteran pitching BP...but doesn't he have a gajillion saves?)
On the night, they just couldn't do it. Heck of a game.
I have always liked Brian Giles but I was embarrassed for him after he made that throw. It reminded me of a one-legged Syd Bream scoring off of a lame throw by Barry Bonds.
Speaking of Bonds, I was surprised when I saw Matt Holliday with his helmut off for the first time as his large, bald noggin reminded me of Bonds.
There is a school of thought on umpiring that you hesitate, replay the call in your mind, then make your call. It's meant to give that extra beat to call the play as it happened, not as you anticipated; it can also give an extra moment to allow for dropped balls and the like. It's your own, private 'instant replay'.
It's also a double-edged sword. Slow calls can be frustrating, but we also want the calls to be right. On the whole, I'd rather have the guy who waits and thinks than the guy who's got his hand signal half-formed before the ball gets there.
It's also a double-edged sword. Slow calls can be frustrating, but we also want the calls to be right. On the whole, I'd rather have the guy who waits and thinks than the guy who's got his hand signal half-formed before the ball gets there.
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
Do I get any credit for "Piersynski"?
Yup...here Orlando...for getting A.J.'s name right take this plate of pierogis home and enjoy!
The umpire hesitates because he was behim the catcher ( Reason why he doesn't saw the runner never touched home), and was checking if the catcher holded the ball to make the call.
Even if he'd been called out after Barrett went back and tagged him, you would've had Helton on third with only one out. I'm assuming he was still running while the ball was rolling around on the ground and Barrett had his back turned to the field.
The way things were going, does anyone think that run wouldn't have scored before they got the third out?
The team that deserved to win, won. If the umps hadn't messed up the HR/double call, the Rockies would've won it 7-6 in 9 innings and we could've all gone to bed on time!
The way things were going, does anyone think that run wouldn't have scored before they got the third out?
The team that deserved to win, won. If the umps hadn't messed up the HR/double call, the Rockies would've won it 7-6 in 9 innings and we could've all gone to bed on time!
quote:Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
Even if he'd been called out after Barrett went back and tagged him, you would've had Helton on third with only one out. I'm assuming he was still running while the ball was rolling around on the ground and Barrett had his back turned to the field.
The way things were going, does anyone think that run wouldn't have scored before they got the third out?
The team that deserved to win, won. If the umps hadn't messed up the HR/double call, the Rockies would've won it 7-6 in 9 innings and we could've all gone to bed on time!
Two outs one on.....with massive momentum change...