thesteve
Addicted to Softballfans
Just wanted to get some perspective on how you guys would've called this one: https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-...ame-after-odd-obstruction-call-061317518.html
Other MLB Obstruction Call
- Thread starter thesteve
- Start date
TrainWreck209
Hardcore since '84
Aybar is a sneaky *****. The umpires knew they screwed up which is why Melvin was never tossed. Umpires are infallible so the call stood even when they couldn't come up with a reason why.
ryanclink
goes hard your way catch
Notice that Aybar went to the fielder like a heat seaking missile ... BUT the guy that caught the ball was only in his way because the baseline was blocked. SOoo if he runs into the guy w/o the ball it's obstruction either way. This barstool has no legs to stand on . PS- F the A's - GO Angles!
eyerolleddapiec
Loves Balls
Angles>Angels IMHO
eyerolleddapiec
Loves Balls
Id say if he runs into the guy who fielded the ball he is out, but because he tried to avoid that guy but ran into the pitcher he gets 1st base. Smart play on his part. But im no umpire.
BretMan
Addicted to Softballfans
When more than one fielder goes after a batted ball, the umpire can only consider ONE of them as "being in the act of fielding the ball". Only that one fielder gets protected from interference. If any fielder other than the one fielding the ball impedes the runner, it is obstruction.
With the benefit of slow motion instant replay and time to think about it (a luxury not afforded to an umpire on the field)...
- Which fielder would you say was "fielding the ball"?
Remember, it can only be one of them. Usually, when two fielders are that close, all you can do is assume that the fielder who actually fielded the ball is the one "protected" from interference. On this play, that would be the pitcher.
- Where is F3- the fielder not fielding the ball- standing?
Right in the baseline and right in the runner's path.
- Would you say that the runner stepped out of the baseline to avoid F3, who was standing in his way without possession of the ball and was not in the act of fielding the ball?
If yes, then this is obstruction. In baseball, when a batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first base, the ball is dead and he is awarded first base.
Greg Gibson is one of the better MLB umpires. I like how he came out, without delay, and sold the call...hard!
I can't see a protest flying here, because it's not a rule misinterpretation. It's a judgment call.
With the benefit of slow motion instant replay and time to think about it (a luxury not afforded to an umpire on the field)...
- Which fielder would you say was "fielding the ball"?
Remember, it can only be one of them. Usually, when two fielders are that close, all you can do is assume that the fielder who actually fielded the ball is the one "protected" from interference. On this play, that would be the pitcher.
- Where is F3- the fielder not fielding the ball- standing?
Right in the baseline and right in the runner's path.
- Would you say that the runner stepped out of the baseline to avoid F3, who was standing in his way without possession of the ball and was not in the act of fielding the ball?
If yes, then this is obstruction. In baseball, when a batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first base, the ball is dead and he is awarded first base.
Greg Gibson is one of the better MLB umpires. I like how he came out, without delay, and sold the call...hard!
I can't see a protest flying here, because it's not a rule misinterpretation. It's a judgment call.
Last edited:
TrainWreck209
Hardcore since '84
He changed course and ran straight at the pitcher, who had fielded the ball, trying to knock it loose I would assume. If he wanted obstruction he should have stayed straight and ran into moss. I like when a ****head move is called a smart or heads up play. He knew exactly what he was doing and he went down like the ***** he is when he ran into otero.
If umpires are so worried about the "integrity" of the game how do you let that fly.
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
The umpire's judgment was that the presence of F3 forced the runner to alter his base path which caused him to be put out. Meanwhile, the reason he moved in that direction is because he thought F3 was going to field the ball.
By rule, technically, it is a viable and justifiable call. Doesn't mean that every umpire would make the same call or that this umpire will be told to not make it again and an interpretation be offered by MLB.
Personally, I think it was over-officiating as an OBS call is supposed to negate the effect of the impediment. If the OBS had not occurred, IMJ, the runner would have been out and probably would have ruled as such.
Illegal pitcher
The Veteran
Watch it again - he veered toward the pitcher while the ball was still in the air.
TrainWreck209
Hardcore since '84
It was a bang bang play but usually you only try to disrupt the play by running 3 feet inside the baseline. I understand the call but it's still bush. It didn't hurt them anyway. The best part of the game was Wilson's tantrum when he got pulled.
MaverickAH
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the runner was far enough up the line that he should've been in the runner's lane. Both F1 & F3 were in fair territory which left a clear path to the runner's right & he was about 8' up from where the runner's lane started. He could have veered right into that lane but chose to go left. Hmmm........
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
You obviously do not understand the rule which applies to the 3' lane. The lane does not come into play here.
rhound50
Rec Coed Superstar
So maybe its my misunderstanding of obstruction but I thought the runner is only protected to the base the umpire believes he would have reached? Am I wrong and the runner is given 1 base plus protection to an additional base they would have obtained. In this case the fielder fielded the ball and without the obstruction would have thrown the runner out by 20 feet. If the answer is one free base what is to keep a runner in this situation from going out of his way to be obstructed so he gets the free base when normally he would be thrown out?
Anyone else notice the the 2 defensive players collided causing the pitchers momentum to instantly stop and actually bounce backwards. Sometimes watching the clip it looks like Aybar might have made it around had that not happened, then the next time I watch, it looks like he leaned into the pitcher after starting to go around him.
Regardless, since the first baseman was kind of in the way and did not field the ball they were kind of forced into the call by the rules it seems. Certainly doesn't seem like a blown call, or horrible judgement.
*Edited name error, not sure why I kept going with Pujos other than it was the first name in the article
Regardless, since the first baseman was kind of in the way and did not field the ball they were kind of forced into the call by the rules it seems. Certainly doesn't seem like a blown call, or horrible judgement.
*Edited name error, not sure why I kept going with Pujos other than it was the first name in the article
Last edited:
TrainWreck209
Hardcore since '84
I can't listen to you. You don't even know it wasn't pujols
MaverickAH
Well-Known Member
So when does it come into play? Enlighten me.
Illegal pitcher
The Veteran
OR when a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball.
Official Baseball Rules
7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when-
k) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that "lane" but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot "lane" or on the lines marking the "lane."
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
Here is MLB OBR 7.09
(k) A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.
Here is MLB OBR 6.05
(k) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
In either case, it shows you post as bull****.
Illegal pitcher
The Veteran
No, it just means they changed the rule, dummy.
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
I doubt that since your version was not the correct rule. Also, your rule would permit INT as long as the BR was in the runner lane. BTW, this rule has been the same for decades.
Just so I am clear given all the interference/obstruction threads around here and the talk of fielding a BATTED ball always comes up....
This part of the rule quoted in that article:
"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.'"
Is a MLB thing, right? From what I understand from reading this forum, in softball, a runner is not charged with interference if he runs into the fielder while fielding a thrown ball. i.e. Play at the plate and the runner bumps (let's say unintentionally to avoid all the trucking a catcher talk) the catcher while he is waiting to catch the throw home (ball in the air).
Do I understand this correctly?
This part of the rule quoted in that article:
"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.'"
Is a MLB thing, right? From what I understand from reading this forum, in softball, a runner is not charged with interference if he runs into the fielder while fielding a thrown ball. i.e. Play at the plate and the runner bumps (let's say unintentionally to avoid all the trucking a catcher talk) the catcher while he is waiting to catch the throw home (ball in the air).
Do I understand this correctly?