Obstruction and Matt Holliday

[ledzepp8]

The plate was wide open. Holliday had all the opportunity in the world to touch it. And Barrett didn't move his leg until the ball reached the plate.

How is a catcher supposed to catch the ball and tag out a runner if he's not allowed to crouch in the place where the ball and the runner both arrive: home plate.

Exactly. What do you expect the catcher to do Drungo?

[RShack]

This is a perfect example of the Real Rules being different than the Written Rules. I agree that, according to the Written Rules, he was obstructing the plate, because he clearly did not have the ball. However, according to the Real Rules, had the C not done what he had done, and had instead got out of the way until he had the ball, every baseball fan who watched the game would be calling for his head on a stick. The C did the right thing. IMO, the Written Rule is an aberration that does not reflect what the Real Rule has always been.

ps: Was there ever a time that the strike zone was really what it says in the rule book? I don't know the answer. It's never been that in my lifetime. (The furthest back I go is when the 2 leagues had different strike zones because of the different chest protectors.)

[ledzepp8]

I have a hard time believing that the intent of the rule is to make this play obstruction, and that the umps simply don't call it according to the book (as with the other examples you cited).

I think this sums it up. It's more like you can't just arbitrarily try and keep the runner from touching the base. Kind of like the catcher going and grabbing the runner and moving him out of the way or something. That's an exaggeration I know, but I don't think the point was that the catcher can't wait for the ball at the plate.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this sums it up. It's more like you can't just arbitrarily try and keep the runner from touching the base. Kind of like the catcher going and grabbing the runner and moving him out of the way or something. That's an exaggeration I know, but I don't think the point was that the catcher can't wait for the ball at the plate.

The catcher can certainly wait for the ball at the plate. He just can't wait for it with his foot or his shinguard blocking access to the plate until the ball gets there. Nobody's saying he couldn't have his foot in the middle of the plate, or off to the side of the plate as long as there's still a free and clear way for the runner to touch the plate.

[davearm]

If they didn't mean it, why did they go out of their way to put this sentence in the official rules? The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score.

You conveniently ignored the next sentence, which clarifies that the catcher may, in fact, take up a position in the baseline if he is in the process of fielding the ball.

Now you may interpret that language to refer to a *batted* ball, but clearly that's not how the umpires interpret it.

[davearm]

The catcher can certainly wait for the ball at the plate. He just can't wait for it with his foot or his shinguard blocking access to the plate until the ball gets there. Nobody's saying he couldn't have his foot in the middle of the plate, or off to the side of the plate as long as there's still a free and clear way for the runner to touch the plate.

But the ball had gotten there in this case.

If Holliday had arrived ahead of the throw, and Barrett had blocked him from the plate while awaiting the arrival of the ball, then you'd have a legitimate point here. But that's not what happened.

Nowhere is it stated or implied that the fielder has to clear a path for the runner to the base/plate on a play this close, where the ball and runner arrive at the base/plate at virtually the same time.

[ledzepp8]

The catcher can certainly wait for the ball at the plate. He just can't wait for it with his foot or his shinguard blocking access to the plate until the ball gets there. Nobody's saying he couldn't have his foot in the middle of the plate, or off to the side of the plate as long as there's still a free and clear way for the runner to touch the plate.

I don't agree but this is all moot anyway because Barrett's foot was in front of the plate and in no way blocking anything. He didn't move it to the back of the plate until he had received the throw and was going to tag Holliday.