Obstruction call in LSU - SC game...correct outcome?

[EdLovrich]

Is that within the spirit of the rule? Would it be reveiwable if she stopped at third?

Yes it is. No, it isn't.

 

[mmeece]

To ask another question, did the 3rd base coach send her home expecting an obstruction call?

That would be possible but risky. Keep in mind that even with the obstruction call she could still have been ruled out at home. She was only protected between 2B and 3B.

 

[radness]

That would be possible but risky. Keep in mind that even with the obstruction call she could still have been ruled out at home. She was only protected between 2B and 3B.

? ~And yet~
She was awarded being safe at home!

 

[mmeece]

? ~And yet~
She was awarded being safe at home!

She's PROTECTED between 2B and 3B but can be AWARDED home if the umpire judges she could have reached it without the obstruction. With the play being within a step or so at home it seems like the right call to me. However, if she had been out by a wide margin the umpire could have called her out at home because she had achieved the base she was protected to (3B) and advanced at her own risk.

 

[Northball]

Using this logic, if a BR is obstructed just before 1B on a clean triple to deep right corner, you are suggesting she only be awarded 1B? The question an umpire needs to consider is "How long was the runner delayed and how close was the call at the end of the play. " Any other actions, runner stumbling on her own, hesitating, retreating to a base before advancing, are all moot. If it is even close it goes in the runner's favor.

As for the defenses reaction in delaying a throw? They caused the issue, they do not get protection.

Nope. I haven't fleshed out all the possible scenarios. I get what you're saying about a 1st base player immediately obstructing the batter on a base hit where the punishment is only a guaranteed single. On the flip side, we wouldn't want an obstructed runner on a bunt down the first base line to run all the way home knowing the obstruction protects her. All I am saying is when any rules committee meets (or however such things are done), this particular situation may be an example where the wording and intent of the rule should be looked at so the game can be played and officiated with the least amount of controversy.

 

[erniekru]

She was protected to home, hence the call to award her the run even though she was thrown out.

 

[radness]

She's PROTECTED between 2B and 3B but can be AWARDED home if the umpire judges she could have reached it without the obstruction. With the play being within a step or so at home it seems like the right call to me. However, if she had been out by a wide margin the umpire could have called her out at home because she had achieved the base she was protected to (3B) and advanced at her own risk.

Was responding to the previous post you had responded to regarding a coach after observing the oops at 2nd...then taking further advantage of the rule-sets and sending runner home knowing the rule set.

Post was
Did the 3rd base coach send her expecting an obstruction call?

imo YES VERY PO$SIBLY.

Imagine that coach knows darn well that runner could be thrown out at home.
Clumsy awkward runner at that.
Oh and she was thrown out!

Video showed she/coach was imediatly down the line in the umpires ears.
Just after the umpire called her out.

 

[TMD]

She was protected to home, hence the call to award her the run even though she was thrown out.

Don't see how she was protected at home since the obstruction occurred between 2B and 3B. I assume she was awarded home because that is where the ump felt she would have reached with no obstruction. If they felt that she would not have made it home without the obstruction, and the play played out as it did, then the runner would have been out (ump friends, please correct me).

Alternatively, if the runner had stopped at 3, would the ump have awarded her home if he felt she would have scored without the obstruction?

 

[radness]

Just a notation

Not at all interested in what the rule says. Because we already know things are not just simple out or safe.

What i'm discussing/interested in
is the quality in the decision of when rules are applied or not.

The rule can be whatever the rule is.
Then there is cheesy.

Like leaning into pitches to let the pitch hit you...to get a free base.
That is how i see this situation.

The low integrity of the play/runner was awarded a decision in their favor by an umpire ruling. And in this case a dont think its a quality ruling because of what the runner did = run scored. = unearned.

 

[erniekru]

Don't see how she was protected at home since the obstruction occurred between 2B and 3B. I assume she was awarded home because that is where the ump felt she would have reached with no obstruction. If they felt that she would not have made it home without the obstruction, and the play played out as it did, then the runner would have been out (ump friends, please correct me).

Alternatively, if the runner had stopped at 3, would the ump have awarded her home if he felt she would have scored without the obstruction?

There is not use differentiating "protected" and "awarded", they are the one and the same.. My point was that the ump felt like the runner would have made it to home had there not been contact, hence he awarded her home..

If the runner ran to third and stopped, he would not award her home. She would've stayed at 3B because she wanted to. The runner has to advance.

I probably shouldn't have mixed the terms, I was trying to show that she was protected (don't know who put that term into this thread) because of the award of home..