Obstruction?

[grayhawk]

Blocking the plate without the ball?

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17461423

[sdix00]

Legal in MLB. F2 was in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

[Thunderheads]

Blocking the plate without the ball?

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=17461423

at :27 ....he doesn't have the ball .....and he's definately blocking the plate ............

[noumpere]

Blocking the plate without the ball?

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=17461423

Yes he was blocking the plate without the ball but so what? Thats allowed in pro rules if a play is imminent and it was here.

[grayhawk]

Blocking the plate without the ball?

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=17461423

Yes he was blocking the plate without the ball but so what? Thats allowed in pro rules if a play is imminent and it was here.

Is that from MLBUM? I don't have that publication, so I don't know. I get dix's comment, but if the defensive player is in a position of obstruction before fielding the ball, can't obstruction be called? Seems to me Mathis was blocking the plate and the throw came to him, versus him moving to catch a throw that moved him up the line. I'm an Angels fan, but Ordonez should have plowed him over - he would have been safe.

[noumpere]

Is that from MLBUM? I don't have that publication, so I don't know.

It's from the rule book where it says something like "about to receive a thrown ball". The play is imminent were my words (not that Im claiming to have invented them or anything).

[grayhawk]

Is that from MLBUM? I don't have that publication, so I don't know.

It's from the rule book where it says something like "about to receive a thrown ball". The play is imminent were my words (not that Im claiming to have invented them or anything).

OK - wasn't sure because I have not seen the "imminent" language in the rules. It's hard to tell from the video if Mathis was camped out there before he was receiving the thrown ball or not. I imagine this type of thing is rarely called in MLB.

[sdix00]

Is that from MLBUM? I don't have that publication, so I don't know.

It's from the rule book where it says something like "about to receive a thrown ball". The play is imminent were my words (not that Im claiming to have invented them or anything).

OK - wasn't sure because I have not seen the "imminent" language in the rules. It's hard to tell from the video if Mathis was camped out there before he was receiving the thrown ball or not. I imagine this type of thing is rarely called in MLB.

It is OK to camp on the line. It is not OK to camp AND Obstruct, UNLESS fielding a thrown ball.

At the time of the possible OBS, (i.e. when R3 would have been diverted/slowed) the ball was en route.

[Mr Umpire]

By interp, if the ball is on the infield and on its way toward the fielder, then he is considered to be "in the act of fielding a ball". Since the throw occurred well before R3 was close to HP, F2 can legally be where he was and the play is legal under OBR.

[grayhawk]

By interp, if the ball is on the infield and on its way toward the fielder, then he is considered to be "in the act of fielding a ball". Since the throw occurred well before R3 was close to HP, F2 can legally be where he was and the play is legal under OBR.

Fair enough - in pro ball, this is a legal play. Are there any levels of youth baseball that this would be legal as well? It's clear obstruction in Fed - that I know.

[sdix00]

By interp, if the ball is on the infield and on its way toward the fielder, then he is considered to be "in the act of fielding a ball". Since the throw occurred well before R3 was close to HP, F2 can legally be where he was and the play is legal under OBR.

Fair enough - in pro ball, this is a legal play. Are there any levels of youth baseball that this would be legal as well? It's clear obstruction in Fed - that I know.

NCAA added the phrase "not in the act of fielding the ball" in 2011.

SO now NCAA is enforced like OBR in this regard.

LL requires possession but makes an allowance for the "train wreck"

[noumpere]

NCAA added the phrase "not in the act of fielding the ball" in 2011.

SO now NCAA is enforced like OBR in this regard.

To add more on this, NCAA was the same as OBR for many years, then changed to be like HS, and now are back to pro. The difference comes on blocking the base on a pickoff attempt which is obstruction in NCAA and legal in pro.

[carolinablue]

I can't believe the Tigers were out on a close play and Leyland didn't get tossed.... Maybe he was already gone when that happened. LOL

[johnnyg08]

Also in NCAA, if contact is above the waist it is judged to be an attempt to dislodge the baseball, not to reach home plate.

[mazzamouth]

By interp, if the ball is on the infield and on its way toward the fielder, then he is considered to be "in the act of fielding a ball". Since the throw occurred well before R3 was close to HP, F2 can legally be where he was and the play is legal under OBR.

Fair enough - in pro ball, this is a legal play. Are there any levels of youth baseball that this would be legal as well? It's clear obstruction in Fed - that I know.

NCAA added the phrase "not in the act of fielding the ball" in 2011.

SO now NCAA is enforced like OBR in this regard.

LL requires possession but makes an allowance for the "train wreck"

You also need to read the Approved ruling on this.... A.R. 1: If the fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and the ball is in flight directly

toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the throw,

he may be considered “in the act of fielding the ball.â€