Jump to content

Obstruction and Matt Holliday


DrungoHazewood

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Do you really think the O's will go to a 6 man rotation and limit the pen to 7 relievers. Bautista, Akin, Tate and Krehbiel all showed signs of overuse in September after Lopez was traded.
    • As for people who think John will sell,don't think it will happen.What else gives him this power. The suits raised concerns among fans that a sale of the team could mean it would move. Louis Angelos suggested in one filing that John Angelos, who has a home in Nashville, could relocate the team to Tennessee. John Angelos has said repeatedly the team will not leave Baltimore, and sources told The Sun he wants to maintain his family’s majority ownership, even if a portion of its shares are sold.
    • On Jan. 26, Judge Keith Truffer ordered a range of documents to be turned over to Louis Angelos and his lawyers, including from Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, an investment firm Georgia Angelos worked with on a possible sale of the Orioles. The judge also wanted Louis Angelos’ team to receive any documents and communications regarding a possible sale of the family’s interest in the Orioles or MASN. Truffer had set a deadline of 14 days, instructing Georgia and John Angelos to “produce financial statements reflecting the financial condition of the Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership (”BOLP”), which includes the Orioles and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, from January 1, 2017, to the present.” Further, he wrote, they also would provide documents to show “compensation or other benefits paid to John Angelos from January 1, 2017 to present in connection with his duties for BOLP, including his work for the Baltimore Orioles and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network.”
    • Sun says one of ththe reasons they settled was because of were getting closer to financial records being released. As legal battle delved further into Angelos family’s personal, financial dealings, they agree to drop lawsuits – Baltimore Sun httpsFCC://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bs-md-angelos-suit-settled-20230206-pqx4qtlw65dljjyihnmwywyv5i-story.html
    • It's certainly a start for sure. I really want it lower in the minors where it's tougher to get good video, but I take what I can get!
    • Probably the college world series.  The O's are paying for his decline phase!
    • oWAR + dWAR does not = WAR.  There is a positional adjustment to oWAR and dWAR that is double-counted if you simply add the two numbers.    That said, you are correct that Manny’s best rWAR year was his age 22 season.  His rWAR total that year was 7.5, not 8.0.  By fWAR, 2022 was Manny’s best year.  In any event, I think it’s fair to say Manny’s still in his prime, based on his excellent 2022 campaign.    
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...