Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
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: 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.
The call completely changed the complexion of the game. Otero has a chance to work the whole inning, and the RP matchups become different.
demands something that's really out of the ordinary that leads directly to a win or a loss
That's not what the rule says, though I agree they're unlikely to win the protest.
I wish Trout had hit a home run instead.
And it won't matter, because the traditional interpretation is more like "Welp, they didn't score that inning so it didn't have any effect."
The way things actually came to pass, Cook started an inning clean, and the Otero incident didn't directly affect the outcome of the game.
I think FredLynn was speaking more in the abstract. I wish (insert random Angels player) had hit a home run instead, as if the play never happened
Protests are almost never upheld because the situation where a team can play out a 50/50 chance (which the game was after the 9th inning ended), and either take the win or get a do-over can never be allowed. Imagine this: Angels fail to score in the 9th after protest. Donaldson hits a homer in the top of the 10th, Angels fail to score in bottom of the 10th.
If the A's have the right to request a do-over, then the Angels should have the same right to force the A's protest forward with no consideration of the final outcome.
What happened with the Rays' protest on that Mark Buehrle pickoff play a week ago? How quickly does MLB respond to these?
What if the A's scored a run on a botched call in the top of the 9th to take a 1-run lead, and the Angels protest. The Angels tie it up in the bottom of the 9th. The tenth inning starts back at "50-50," so is the Angels' protest now moot? Or did the bad call still adversely affect their chances because their run in the bottom of the 9th would have been a walkoff?
This makes sense, but that's not how the rule has ever worked.
Yeah, but I'm not sure Cook is even in the game if that play doesn't happen. Sure, the A's got out of it, but after then botching the bunt play to the next batter (which never would have happened if the Aybar hadn't been on first) the A's ended up using three pitchers in the inning, including their LH situational guy. That has adverse affects on A's pitcher usage later in the game.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 3.1362 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed