Umpire explanation of call

[markedman5]

 

I will be interested to see if the league agrees with him.

[adambr2]

[jjfanec]

 

I will be interested to see if the league agrees with him.

 

It just doesnt make sense. Godley never even stepped in the baseline. He was on the grass the whole way. What exactly should have he done in that scenario?

[owbc]

10 years from now this play will be the reason that I will remember that some guy named Godley once was a starting pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers.

[JohnBriggs12]

If you buy the umpire's explanation, a hitter can hit a ball softly to the first base side of the mound, run right at the pitcher in the general direction of first base then as you approach him, you can veer back to a more direct path to first base and it's obstruction because you veered and that was after all the path you chose to get to first base which apparently trumps all other rules.

 

This is the most ludicrous call and explanation I've ever heard. Had he not veered he would have reached first base two feet inside the bag. I was at the game and there was absolutely no explanation. Play looked entirely routine. Thought maybe I had taken my eyes off the bag and Vogelbach took his foot before he had the ball or somehow bobbled it. Didn't know the call was obstruction until Diaz came up again and they listed the result of his previous AB on the scoreboard.

[areacodes]

The ump says that Diaz had to jog to the right to get out of Godley’s way but Diaz was so far in the grass that the only way he could of touched first base was to start going to his right. It also ignores the fact that Diaz took a quick step to his left when he got near Godley.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

Agreed. It did seem like Diaz was trying to make contact. He defintely took a step to the left. What a terrible call.

Almost like the Umps are trying to get replaced by machines.

[Sixtofan]

I look forward to the cyborg umpires

[Sixtofan]

I do love the Marlins announcers in that clip trying to figure out what happened.

[areacodes]

Did he say anything about the “check swing” on the bunt attempt?

[yourout]

Just saw the replay. That was 100 percent an umpire looking for a camera.

Complete look at me bull crap.

 

Publicly the league will stand behind call but privately they will hopefully read him the riot act.

[MrTPlush]

If the umpires explanation of the rule is right, the call was right. You may think it is a dumb rule at that point, but the call would be 100% right. If you watch the video Isan Diaz is way out in front of the pitch and as a lefty that usually causes a lefty to end up pretty far forward when they start to run to first. He clearly started his ‘runners lane’ in the grass, he DOES NOT run over into the grass midway to first. It also really didn’t look like he made any meaningful attempt to run into the pitcher.

 

Isan Diaz started his lane to first in the grass and kept that same direction all the way down. You may argue he would have had to go over to touch first eventually, but he was impeded well before he got near first to do that.

 

Again, I think it is pretty dumb the rule could call something like that interference. You just think, come in man, just not follow the rule by the book and use discretion. It reminds me of how technically a batter is required to avoid a pitch (I think) and suddenly an ump decides to call it a strike for not trying to move. BUUUUT the way the umpire described the rule, it was the correct call I guess.

[tmwiese55]

In recent years though they've emphasized that runners running on the grass are out of the baseline. Maybe what Plush/Ump are saying is technically true, idk, but it sure seems to contradict the running on the grass calls of recent years that also seemed like headscratchers.

[yourout]

In recent years though they've emphasized that runners running on the grass are out of the baseline. Maybe what Plush/Ump are saying is technically true, idk, but it sure seems to contradict the running on the grass calls of recent years that also seemed like headscratchers.

 

It comes down to what supercedes. The painted running lane or established path to the base. The painted running lane was put in place for safety reasons to reduce collisions so I have to believe that should put the onus on the runner to be between the lines unless avoiding contact.

[MrTPlush]

Well the ump is basically saying a base path is irrelevant because the runner to first was not impeding a throw. If it would have been a bunt attempt and Diaz was in the grass interfering with a throwing lane he would have been in the wrong. However, since that was not the case instead the pitcher was in the wrong.

 

I don’t think the ump was trying to be the center of attention. I think he just really knew the rule book and was going to follow it no matter the situation.

 

Of course, again, I am assuming his explanation he gave really reflects the rule book definition. I don’t read the rule book that intently myself

[DHonks]

I get what he's saying. The baseline isn't technically a line between bases, but rather whatever is established by the player. BUT, Diaz does not move to the right one bit. He stays on his path until he's already out. And Godley doesn't make any move into his path.

[jerichoholicninja]

The runner's established basepath and running lane along first base mean nothing here. Godley did nothing to interfere with the runner and even if he may have caused him to slightly redirected his running path, he was out by so much it made no difference on the play. I don't know how anyone could look at what happened and say that was the correct call.

[dlk9s]

Thing is, the whole "Diaz established his path" is complete BS. You can see that Diaz never intended to run toward the base. He ran straight at Godley (or where Godley was going to end up) the entire time. It wasn't until he got to Godley that he made his sidestep. If he was trying to run to first base, he might have initially started on the grass, but then he would have angled himself toward the bag. He never did that.

 

There is no possible way Godley interfered. He fielded the ball and that was that. There is no reasonable interpretation of interference on his part.

[Oxy]

The fielder has a right to make a play on the batted ball. Had Godley been slightly slower to the ball and Diaz slightly faster and had contact been made by Diaz as Godley tried to field the ball then it would have been interference on Diaz. Had Godley not turned to throw the ball to first he can obviously stand in the baseline with the ball to tag Diaz. The only reason he didn't have the ball was because he tossed it to first and the out was made thus negating any interference that could have been called. Just stupid all around.

[MrTPlush]

Yah, but he was so far from first when he got to Godley. He could have angled over still and honestly he probably could have dived to touch first all while never moving over if we are being honest. The fact he is out by so much is somewhat irrelevant to the rule. He start his path in the grass and eventually got to Godley.

 

Rereading the umps explanation it seems to me the moment of obstruction is when Godley flips the ball and just stands there. At that point Godley is no longer “making a play” on the ball and the ump sees him as an obstruction. This sounds kind of ridiculous (honestly it is), but if you imagine a hypothetical scenario where Vogelbach drops the ball then you would totally see how what Godley did was an obstruction to running to first. The ump seemed convinced Diaz had to slow up before Vogelbach had secured the out at first. This is probably right because Vogelbach did not catch the ball on first and took ten years to actually touch the bag. This makes the play end up appearing much closer than it was in reality.

 

Again, I think the umpire should have used some some common sense and just ate the whistle so to speak...but I am still a bit convinced what he called was potentially correct by rule.

 

This is like the catch rule in the NFL. We all think it shouldn’t be interference...but what does the rule say?

[areacodes]

Thing is, the whole "Diaz established his path" is complete BS. You can see that Diaz never intended to run toward the base. He ran straight at Godley (or where Godley was going to end up) the entire time. It wasn't until he got to Godley that he made his sidestep. If he was trying to run to first base, he might have initially started on the grass, but then he would have angled himself toward the bag. He never did that.

 

There is no possible way Godley interfered. He fielded the ball and that was that. There is no reasonable interpretation of interference on his part.

 

I slightly disagree with this. To me it looks like Diaz started to angle towards first when he’s about 3 to 4 steps from Godley as his right foot is now on the edge of the grass/dirt compared to where he started (both feet totally in the grass). As he got to Godley, he took a quick little jab with his left foot towards Godley and then makes his big adjustment to the right and gets the call. Of course that actually makes the call by the ump worse as Diaz is the one who changed his path to make it look more like interference on Godley.

[Pugger]

If the umpires explanation of the rule is right, the call was right. You may think it is a dumb rule at that point, but the call would be 100% right. If you watch the video Isan Diaz is way out in front of the pitch and as a lefty that usually causes a lefty to end up pretty far forward when they start to run to first. He clearly started his ‘runners lane’ in the grass, he DOES NOT run over into the grass midway to first. It also really didn’t look like he made any meaningful attempt to run into the pitcher.

 

Isan Diaz started his lane to first in the grass and kept that same direction all the way down. You may argue he would have had to go over to touch first eventually, but he was impeded well before he got near first to do that.

 

Again, I think it is pretty dumb the rule could call something like that interference. You just think, come in man, just not follow the rule by the book and use discretion. It reminds me of how technically a batter is required to avoid a pitch (I think) and suddenly an ump decides to call it a strike for not trying to move. BUUUUT the way the umpire described the rule, it was the correct call I guess.

 

As someone here mentioned in yesterday's game thread - Diaz shouldn't have been running to first base on the grass. If the catcher throws the ball towards first base and Diaz gets hit in the back he is out!

[brewcrewdue80]

If Godley had stepped on the dirt vs the grass I'd understand the call. For me, the fact he remained on the grass when his momentum was carrying towards the base line, shows he had no intent on interference. Also suggesting Diaz let up because he slowed for Godley "interference" ignores that Godley just flipped the ball to 1b and Diaz clearly was out by 4-5steps. No need to bust those last steps he was out at that moment.

[MrTPlush]

As someone here mentioned in yesterday's game thread - Diaz shouldn't have been running to first base on the grass. If the catcher throws the ball towards first base and Diaz gets hit in the back he is out!

 

It doesn't matter though because the throw was not coming from behind him. Thus, according to the umpire and apparently the rule, he can decide to run wherever he would like as long as he stays on that same line. It is no different than a batter rounding first 20 feet in foul territory to run to second, is that suppose to be running out of the baseline? No, because the player isn't trying to be tagged.

[stalton]

Does the league ever call out an umpire's decision though. Unless it involves a play resulting in a fine or suspension, I don't recall the league making any comments on any egrious calls. Maybe I am misremembering.