What Would You Do? Part III

[Replacematt]

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

[Texas Manny]

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

[Richvee]

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

 

Here's where we disagree. You seem to believe that chasing after a ball is considered fielding the ball once you get close to it again.  At 0:09 he's still chasing down the ball. He's chasing..not fielding. In his chase he slides right in front of BR. I have OBS. 

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

 

Ok.  Who told you this lie?  You do not have to have hindrance with contact.  Contact only makes it easier to call but is not a requirement nor any criteria to look for.

[Texas Manny]

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

 

Here's where we disagree. You seem to believe that chasing after a ball is considered fielding the ball once you get close to it again.  At 0:09 he's still chasing down the ball. He's chasing..not fielding. In his chase he slides right in front of BR. I have OBS. 

He is well within a step and a reach and has fulfilled his requirement to reestablish protection. The rules do not say how the ball is to be fielded, just that it is fielded, which is what the pitcher is doing.

[Richvee]

"There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact."

 

Disagree 100% 

[Replacematt]

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact.

You absolutely can. This is a coach-like statement.

[Mr Umpire]

Yeah, you dug a hole with that statement.

[24sdad]

"There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact."

 

You don't really believe this do you?

[Richvee]

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

 

Here's where we disagree. You seem to believe that chasing after a ball is considered fielding the ball once you get close to it again.  At 0:09 he's still chasing down the ball. He's chasing..not fielding. In his chase he slides right in front of BR. I have OBS. 

He is well within a step and a reach and has fulfilled his requirement to reestablish protection. The rules do not say how the ball is to be fielded, just that it is fielded, which is what the pitcher is doing.

 

Well, we agree to disagree. You think he's in the act fielding, I think he's still chasing. 

[ricka56]

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

 

The vast majority of obstruction I see doesn't have any contact at all. If fielder makes runner go around him, that's obstruction..as in the still 0.09

[basejester]

If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position.

PBUC

7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide

When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

 

Ok.  Who told you this lie?  You do not have to have hindrance without contact.  Contact only makes it easier to call but is not a requirement nor any criteria to look for.

 

The definition of hindrance requires a change to occur in either motion or direction by an outside force. The runner never stopped running. He kept running full stride up the line. No change in speed or direction. Up until the point that the runner had to jump was there no hindrance, and by that time, the pitcher was already on the ground, fielding the ball.

[Richvee]

"There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact."

 

You don't really believe this do you?

There's more than a few announcers who share this sentiment. 

[Mr Umpire]

And, now, this is where Jax's statement of lack of calling OBS correctly comes in.  Do not hang your entire argument on when you think OBS occurred if you think contact is necessary.  You will lose that argument every time.

[24sdad]

Manny, come on.  Anyone can clearly see B/R pull up (slowing his forward progress) well before any contact and F1 possessing the ball.

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

 

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

 

Ok.  Who told you this lie?  You do not have to have hindrance without contact.  Contact only makes it easier to call but is not a requirement nor any criteria to look for.

 

The definition of hindrance requires a change to occur in either motion or direction by an outside force. The runner never stopped running. He kept running full stride up the line. No change in speed or direction. Up until the point that the runner had to jump was there no hindrance, and by that time, the pitcher was already on the ground, fielding the ball.

 

Watch the video, not your still shot.  You will see him alter his running.  Watch the video before this still shot.

[Texas Manny]

 

If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position.

PBUC

7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide

When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

 

I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics.

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position.

PBUC

7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide

When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

 

I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics.

 

However, a catcher coming from behind a runner is not the same thing as a fielder chasing a deflection from in front of the runner.  Nothing the same about it.

[Texas Manny]

And, now, this is where Jax's statement of lack of calling OBS correctly comes in.  Do not hang your entire argument on when you think OBS occurred if you think contact is necessary.  You will lose that argument every time.

Who said that? I certainly don't believe obstruction requires contact. It requires only a change of motion or direction, which is what hindrance is, and that didn't occur with this play until the runner had to jump, and at that point the pitcher was fielding the ball.

 

 

 

If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position.

PBUC

7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide

When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

 

I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics.

 

However, a catcher coming from behind a runner is not the same thing as a fielder chasing a deflection from in front of the runner.  Nothing the same about it.

 

PHYSICS: Each player was doing what they were supposed to do. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for his base.

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand:

 

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable.

 

There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.

 

You didn't say this?  Who did?

[Replacematt]

Who said that? I certainly don't believe obstruction requires contact. It requires only a change of motion or direction, which is what hindrance is, and that didn't occur with this play until the runner had to jump, and at that point the pitcher was fielding the ball.

You did.

If obstruction requires hindrance (which you just said,) and hindrance requires contact (which you also said,) then obstruction requires contact.

[Mr Umpire]

 

And, now, this is where Jax's statement of lack of calling OBS correctly comes in.  Do not hang your entire argument on when you think OBS occurred if you think contact is necessary.  You will lose that argument every time.

Who said that? I certainly don't believe obstruction requires contact. It requires only a change of motion or direction, which is what hindrance is, and that didn't occur with this play until the runner had to jump, and at that point the pitcher was fielding the ball.

 

 

 

If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series.

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position.

PBUC

7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide

When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

 

I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics.

 

However, a catcher coming from behind a runner is not the same thing as a fielder chasing a deflection from in front of the runner.  Nothing the same about it.

 

PHYSICS: Each player was doing what they were supposed to do. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for his base.

 

No, F1 did not do what he was suppose to.  He is suppose to avoid the runner when chasing his deflection.

[Mr Umpire]

Watch the video again.  Just before your still shot, BR does alter his running as F1 is beginning his slide to STILL chase the ball.

[basejester]

I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics.

OK, fair enough. I don't think we can infer anything about the correct ruling on this play from the ruling on the Armbrister play. Do you?