A bench clearing brawl in Atlanta between the Brewers and Braves inspires Group Case Play 2013-10: An Unsportsmanlike Home Run. With one out and none on, batter Carlos Gomez hits a home run. While
 |
| Conclusive evidence: B1 doesn't go home. |
jogging around the bases, he and several opponents engage in unsportsmanlike conduct such that opposing player Freddie Freeman, Gerald Laird and Gomez himself
are ejected by HP Umpire Paul Nauert and 1B Umpire Doug Eddings (2B Umpire Angel Hernandez, 3B Umpire and Crew Chief Dana DeMuth). Upon the final leg of Gomez's 360-foot journey around the bases, he is confronted by catcher Brian McCann; he responds with unsporting actions of his own and the benches clear, resulting in a brawl, Gomez having to be restrained by teammates before being ushered back to the dugout and into the clubhouse. Batter Gomez never touches home plate, but the Braves do not appeal as the scoreboard changes from 0-0 to 1-0, Milwaukee.
Question: What's the call? Should HP Umpire Paul Nauert rule Gomez out for failing to touch home plate or otherwise deviating from his attempt to advance—if so, does this require an appeal? What rules apply?
This Case Play is of the Group variety and expires
at the final out of the final game of the season on Sunday (still expires at the conclusion of play Sunday even if a tiebreaker game results).
Related Post:
MLB Ejections 177, 178, 179: Eddings, Nauert (3, 4; 3)
Video:
Multiple broadcasts of the bench-clearing brawl confirming Gomez did not touch home plate (Must C)
17 comments :
Type B obstruction. Award home. Eject everyone. :)
7.06 (b) Note: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
I feel that this is exactly what occurred in this situation. Gomez was obviously attempting to score, he never stopped running the bases even when he was jawing with the Braves infielders. McCann did in fact physically prevent him from scoring. In the end if McCann didn't go up the line we wouldn't be having this discussion, why award the defense if they messed up? I understand Gomez is an idiot but this scenario is the definition of the notes section of this rule.
I bet Nauert was back there telling McCann that he'll leave him in the game if they agree not to appeal.
Too bad Mike Redmond did not get himself tossed last night board gets deprived of a good CB apologist thread.
No appeal, no call. Run counts. And 9.01(c) applies here since this situation isn't outright covered in the rulebook.
Had there been an appeal, I'd call Type B obstruction and award him home plate. There is no correct or incorrect call here due to 9.01(c), so I'm just stating my opinion.
McCann obstructed gomez from touching the plate, plain and simple. Therefore obstruction would be called and gomez awarded the plate, whether he touches it or not is irrelevant since in the judgment of the umpire had the obstruction not occurred he would have touched the plate. The appeal would not be granted and as for a protest this would be protesting a judgment call since obstruction awards are clearly given to umpire judgment.
This is correct.
This specific play is (surprisingly :-)) not covered in the rulebook, and so I agree that 9.01c should be invoked and obviously Gomez would be awarded home.
There is nothing in the rule book that says obs is only for live ball situations.
I put this on the other post but thought I better add it here if I wanted any shot at points if they were being given :P
7.06(b)Note: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no
right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base
line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he
is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
My guess is the umpires ruled Obstruction and used this as their
justification, stating that it was McCann's responsibility to move out
of the way and that Gomez did not have to make an attempt to go around
him.
Clearly, we have obstruction on F2 here ... [7.06(b) NOTE]. In fact, he physically prevents the runner from touching a base. (Well, he and a couple dozen of his good friends.) 9.01(d) says that disqualification during a play in progress does not take effect until no further action is possible. Some might believe the action came to an end when the donnybrook broke out. However, obstruction should have been called and the runner awarded home. Runners must touch awarded bases or be at risk of being called out for failure to touch awarded base(s). I believe the run scores under 9.01(c) using 4.09(b) Comment as a precedent which provides an exception for runners to not be required to touch a base when physically prevented from doing so by fans storming the field. 7.08(a)(2) does not apply as abandonment is a willful (although perhaps mistakenly occurring) act. His "abandonment" was a direct result of physically being denied access to the plate.
Correct! Ejection all who left bench
A home run is a base award, just like a hit by pitch. Run scores, no appeals allowed.
I wouldn't call him out, for reasons specified above. I'm just saying obstruction does nothing for you here that the home run didn't already do.
I disagree with everybody's assertion that he was physically blocked from the plate by McCann. Gomez stops running the bases, and comes to a complete standstill before any contact is ever made. If a guy was sliding into 2nd and the 2nd baseman was blocking the bag without the ball, but he didn't make it to the base or make contact with the 2nd baseman, would you still call obstruction? Perez chose to stop running and therefore making an attempt to touch the plate by his own free will and accord, everything that happened comes later.
I do agree, however, that an appeal should have been made once the ball was put back into play. When that was done, they should've ruled that Gomez did not touch the plate a call him out.
What if B1 had been so engrossed in acting the fool that he stepped on second base awkwardly and injured himself, went down, and had to be carted off? In that case, the offense is allowed to insert a substitute who is entitled to complete B1's baserunning responsibilities.
If B1 is ejected, does the offense have a similar option available to them? In other words, after B1 had been ejected and order had been restored, could the offense have inserted a substitute to touch home plate for B1?
Waiting ready for Gil's multi-page rules breakdown... with an executive summary for the lazy umpire ejection enthusiast.
Post a Comment