Obstruction-how not to do a rundown

[dumbdumb]

Wasn't he going back into first? So why not just leave him there, the base that he was kept from getting too. Question's for the younger guys.

 

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=29063267

[plateumpire]

I was thinking the same thing @dumbdumb. 

[mstaylor]

I will sit and read with interest. 

[Larry in TN]

Because it is Type A obstruction (the obstructed runner was the one on whom the defense was making a play).

 

7.06(a) "... The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

[DVA7130]

Because it is Type A obstruction (the obstructed runner was the one on whom the defense was making a play).

 

7.06(a) "... The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

 

End of thread.

[BigUmpire]

• “Obstruction does not require intention". -.mstaylor

[Thunderheads]

being discussed already.............................

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/54442-good-call-poor-mechanics-hawks-still-a-db/

[Mudder]

And here is the same play with the ejection added in.

 

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=29062795

 

And one from 2011.

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=15719819

 

Oh my, and another one from 2009 between 1st and 2nd.

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=4467307

 

Disagree with both OBS calls in the 2nd and 3rd video.  2nd VID the runner was not impeded in any way IMHO, 3rd VID the runner created the OBS call by clearly going out of his way to make contact with the fielder

[treydawgmt]

I totally disagree w/the 2nd.  As soon as he saw the runner coming he got out of the way and in no way impeded him, from what I can tell.  The 3rd is a bit trickier, especially on the view at about 28/29 seconds.