What a mess ......

[Thunderheads]

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=18084301

[Mr Umpire]

Good call on the No INT signal. It was close on timing but the ball was beyond F4 at the time of any possible INT.

The play at 2B: He has no angle to get to since everything is behind the runner and U2 is completely blocked out from the only camera angle we have. And, since nothing is conclusive, I can only go by BR's reaction (or lack thereof) and say he must have been out. Good call. BR's slide didn't help either b/c he didn't go in straight with his feet. It was kind of a sideways slide.

However, I have to say good job by BR for not going crazy on a close play and actually showing some good judgment of his own. Isn't he the one who threw his bat at an MiLB umpire plus had some other things when he first got to MLB? If so, he seems to have calmed down and just play the game. Or, he truly thought he was out and had no argument.

[mazzamouth]

Good call on the No INT signal. It was close on timing but the ball was beyond F4 at the time of any possible INT.

The play at 2B: He has no angle to get to since everything is behind the runner and U2 is completely blocked out from the only camera angle we have. And, since nothing is conclusive, I can only go by BR's reaction (or lack thereof) and say he must have been out. Good call. BR's slide didn't help either b/c he didn't go in straight with his feet. It was kind of a sideways slide.

However, I have to say good job by BR for not going crazy on a close play and actually showing some good judgment of his own. Isn't he the one who threw his bat at an MiLB umpire plus had some other things when he first got to MLB? If so, he seems to have calmed down and just play the game. Or, he truly thought he was out and had no argument.

Ye tough no call.. it can almost go both ways.. but when the contact was made, F4 had already missed the ball.

This Br is Delmon Young and yes he was the guy who threw his bat at a replacement umpire in a MiLB game.

[noumpere]

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=18084301

Not interferance but could it of been obstruction?

[mstaylor]

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=18084301

Not interferance but could it of been obstruction?

yes

[zm1283]

I was thinking obstruction as well when I first watched it.

[johnnyg08]

Delmon has been virtually silent since he joined the Twins organization and obviously no different w/ the Tigers.

w/o seeing the depth of the ball, there's no evidence to suggest that the umpire missed INT on that play. In fact he signaled safe to indicate that he had nothing on the play.

Good video though.

[yawetag]

Unless this occurred at a base or between BR and F2 on a ball in front of the plate, I don't see how it can be nothing. Someone in this situation is where they're not supposed to be.

[txump81]

I've got nothing. The fielder booted the ball and it was out of a step and reach so no INT. The runner was on top of the fielder at the moment the ball was booted. The fielder can't disappear, so I have no OBS either.

On the tag, it looks like the BR didn't touch the base til late. He slid sideways, his feet never touched and his hands were on the other side. If he slides "normal", he is safe.

[sdix00]

Unless this occurred at a base or between BR and F2 on a ball in front of the plate, I don't see how it can be nothing. Someone in this situation is where they're not supposed to be.

Agree.

Since the Fielder's protection on a Batted ball ends instantly, then he is either interfered with or obstructing here.

There is no gray area.

[Thunderheads]

I though it was something until I saw it in slow mo, ...and basically it's a train wreck, ...it can happen

[timmybloops]

Looked to me like the runner changed his path (thinking the fielder would remain in the baseline), and then crashed into the fielder towards the home plate side of his baseline. If he just runs in his line, there is no collision. Maybe the rule book supports obstruction here but it seems the most sensible call is nothing, IMO.

[sdix00]

I though it was something until I saw it in slow mo, ...and basically it's a train wreck, ...it can happen

I do not agree that a train wreck can happen on a batted ball.

I do not see how "it's nothing" is supported by the rules.

2.00 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.

J/R

15-I-A-1

(1) Concerning obstruction and a batted ball:

A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. [2.00]

[Thunderheads]

I though it was something until I saw it in slow mo, ...and basically it's a train wreck, ...it can happen

I do not agree that a train wreck can happen on a batted ball.

I do not see how "it's nothing" is supported by the rules.

2.00 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.

J/R

15-I-A-1

(1) Concerning obstruction and a batted ball:

A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. [2.00]

And Boesch went to 3rd ....

[Mr Umpire]

For those wanting OBS, what do you call when a ball is thrown to F3 and he misses it? Then, upon immediately missing it, BR and F3 collide. Is that OBS? F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball (Notice it says nothing about fielding a batted ball) but this is the more common occurrence of when a fielder and runner collide immediately following a missed ball.

If F4 had time to move, then he has to get out of the way. Many rules are made without considering the timing of events.

Think about BI. If the batter has time to move, he must. If he doesn't which occurs when F2 throws immediately to a base following catching the pitch and he does nothing intentional, then nothing is called. Rule 6.06© doesn't say anything about if the batter has time to vacate the batter's box, he must. That is made through interpretation and judgment of the umpire if the batter had time to move or not.

No rule takes into account the amount of time for something to occur. That is where being an umpire comes into effect. Taking the written rules and applying common sense of when they should/need to be applied. OBS is not an option IMO on this play due to timing and why F4 was there in the first place. He didn't stop to linger in the baseline b/c he didn't have time to before R1 was there. He had no time to avoid R1 after missing a batted ball which was his legit reason for being in the basepath in the first place.

I have nothing after watching it again.

[Thunderheads]

batted ball and thrown are different ...but I understand what you're saying Mr Umpire

[sdix00]

For those wanting OBS, what do you call when a ball is thrown to F3 and he misses it? Then, upon immediately missing it, BR and F3 collide. Is that OBS? F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball (Notice it says nothing about fielding a batted ball) but this is the more common occurrence of when a fielder and runner collide immediately following a missed ball.

Completely different. Batted balls and Thrown Balls are handled differently under the rules in regards to OBS.

OBS is not an option IMO on this play due to timing and why F4 was there in the first place. He didn't stop to linger in the baseline b/c he didn't have time to before R1 was there. He had no time to avoid R1 after missing a batted ball which was his legit reason for being in the basepath in the first place.

I have nothing after watching it again.

The above quote directly conflicts with the quote below.

J/R

15-I-A-1

(1) Concerning obstruction and a batted ball:

A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. [2.00]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying J/R is absolutely wrong, here. You are, in effect, offering a completely different interp for this:

2.00 OBS Comment

. . . 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.

You are usually right on and what you say makes a lot of sense. I feel like I am missing something.

[Mr Umpire]

Yeah, and J/R quote also says "deflecting the ball" which is not true if the ball is within a "Step and a Reach". They failed to make that point in that quote and thus are not 100% accurate are they?

I know batted and thrown balls are different. But, the point is the OBS rule doesn't make mention of it when stating "the act of fielding the ball". Yet, the actions of the players are the same on all of the different scenarios provided including the OP. Someone got hindered and was it within the rules.

As I stated, the rules do not allow for timing of things. Yet, we, as umpires, take that into consideration on many different plays. Which is why I think the no call was made. The timing of it couldn't be avoided. Also, if going by the example provided in the rules, it gives the impression the infielder had time to move but chose not to. To me, it sounds like he was laying there watching the ball go to the outfield or upset with himself or gets up very slowly with no intentions of moving out of the way. Again, the rule makes no distinction between a batted ball or a thrown ball for the purposes of being in the "act of fielding" though the example following statement is about a batted ball.

The concepts are the same between the OP and the example I gave about F3. The OBS rule even supports it by only saying ball without any distinction between a thrown ball or a batted ball. Yet, the common application of the play at 1B is to treat it as a train wreck as was done in the OP. I think the timing is the reason for making the call in the OP and is the same as the timing issue at 1B in my example.

It's all about timing for determining if the rule is applicable to me. And, I don't think it is applicable in the OP.

[noumpere]

For those wanting OBS, what do you call when a ball is thrown to F3 and he misses it? Then, upon immediately missing it, BR and F3 collide. Is that OBS? F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball (Notice it says nothing about fielding a batted ball) but this is the more common occurrence of when a fielder and runner collide immediately following a missed ball.

I was taught that sense the fielder has the right to a batted ball, he must disappear immediately after failing to field the batted ball. Sense he doesn't have the right to a thrown ball he doesn't have to disappear immediately.

On the play here, though it looks to me like the runner alters course and runs into the fielder as opposed to the fielder getting in the runners way if that makes any sense. Yes I know that the runner can in general run where he wants and he didnt run into the fielder on purpose but that may have been part of the umpires decision process. Or he just kicked it but no harm no foul. lol.

[sdix00]

Mr. Umpire -

In an effort to further prove my point, it seems I may have discovered more support for your point, instead:

JEA

OBSTRUCTION

An infielder who attempts to field a ball but misses shall be given a reasonable amount of

time to clear the runner's path before obstruction is ruled. This is based on umpire's

judgment.

Evans, too, makes no distinction between a thrown ball and a batted ball, as you point out.

JEA and you seem to be in lockstep in contending that J/R is incorrect to insist that the Fielder must disappear.

[Fittske24]

I do not agree with the "thats nothing" or "train wreck" defense.The fact that you have a fielder fielding a batted ball, and contact between a fielder and a runner tells me that you have to judge either interference or OBS. As sdix00 said, there is no gray area. The fact that the fielder did not field the ground ball makes him in jeopardy of committing OBS if he impedes the path of the runner (which happens in this play). My call would have been OBS, but I would only protect the runner to 2nd base. If he gets thrown out going to third then I would nullify the OBS. Now let's look at it the other way....let's say the fielder fields the ball and then the collision occurs. I now of interference. The runner is out, and I might have the runner at first out if I thought the defense could have turned 2 on the play.

Let's look at it this way, lets say you have the same play, but the collision is hard enough to incapacitate R1 and he doesn't make it to 2nd base. You call, "thats nothing" and the defense throws the ball to second for the out. I'd like to see you explain that one to the manager.

[Mr Umpire]

I do not agree with the "thats nothing" or "train wreck" defense.The fact that you have a fielder fielding a batted ball, and contact between a fielder and a runner tells me that you have to judge either interference or OBS. As sdix00 said, there is no gray area. The fact that the fielder did not field the ground ball makes him in jeopardy of committing OBS if he impedes the path of the runner (which happens in this play). My call would have been OBS, but I would only protect the runner to 2nd base. If he gets thrown out going to third then I would nullify the OBS. Now let's look at it the other way....let's say the fielder fields the ball and then the collision occurs. I now of interference. The runner is out, and I might have the runner at first out if I thought the defense could have turned 2 on the play.

Let's look at it this way, lets say you have the same play, but the collision is hard enough to incapacitate R1 and he doesn't make it to 2nd base. You call, "thats nothing" and the defense throws the ball to second for the out. I'd like to see you explain that one to the manager.

I'd explain it b/c it is in the rules about the incapacitated runner part which is a completely different scenario. And, anything I explain will have rule support for him to look at in the parking lot if necessary.

Perhaps you didn't read sdix's last post from Jim Evans. It completely supports the "train wreck" concept and explains why by saying the fielder needs reasonable amount of time to vacate the area. In the OP, the fielder didn't have reasonable time to vacate. Thus, the "That's nothing" call being supported by interpretation and a much more recognized authority.

What I'd like to see explained is if F8 was able to get R1 out at 2B and OBS is called. How are you going to convince a coach that his player should have been able to vacate so the runner could get by on something like the OP? No way either player had time to avoid this collision. Both were doing their job: R1 was trying to avoid F4 and F4 was trying to field the ball.