F2 and BR Get Tangled Out of the Box

[grayhawk]

This happened last week. HS varsity game at Angels Stadium. The umpires are from our local HS Association. A couple of issues here: 1. Was there contact? Clearly, if there was no contact, then there is no call to make (perhaps, "that's nothing" if you feel it's warranted). 2. If there was contact, how you would rule on this play in Fed and OBR? http://vimeo.com/89733134 My "spoiler alert" answer below.

In OBR, even if there was contact, then I have nothing. When contact between F2 and the BR occurs right in front of home plate on batted ball (or bunt) that F2 is making a play on), then as long as there is nothing "extracurricular" going on (such as a shove, a trip, or something else intentional). then neither obstruction nor interference should be called. 7.09(j) Comment. Initially, I could not remember if Fed used the same interpretation as OBR, so I sought the counsel of the BRD. Sure enough, Papa C says to treat as in NCAA (which is the same as OBR). I suppose an argument could be made that F2 was not able to play on the ball because it was too far up the line, but he was making a legitimate play on the ball when the "tangle" occurred. So, my opinion is that contact or no contact, I have nothing on this play.

[Richvee]

I've got nothing. Bunt, F2 making a play on the ball, runner running to first. There was no shoving, tripping, holding, etc. 

[umpstu]

Tripped on the bat.

[umpstu]

This happened last week.  HS varsity game at Angels Stadium.  The umpires are from our local HS Association.

 

A couple of issues here:

 

1.  Was there contact?  Clearly, if there was no contact, then there is no call to make (perhaps, "that's nothing" if you feel it's warranted).

2.  If there was contact, how you would rule on this play in Fed and OBR?

 

'>

 

My "spoiler alert" answer below.

 

In OBR, even if there was contact, then I have nothing.  When contact between F2 and the BR occurs right in front of home plate on batted ball (or bunt) that F2 is making a play on), then as long as there is nothing "extracurricular" going on (such as a shove, a trip, or something else intentional). then neither obstruction nor interference should be called. 7.09(j) Comment..  Initially, I could not remember if Fed used the same interpretation as Fed, so I sought the counsel of the BRD.  Sure enough, Papa C says to treat as in NCAA (which is the same as OBR).

 

I suppose an argument could be made that F2 was not able to play on the ball because it was too far up the line, but he was making a legitimate play on the ball when the "tangle" occurred.  So, my opinion is that contact or no contact, I have nothing on this play.

[UmpJM]

I can't tell from the video whether there was contact or not.

 

If there WAS contact, I would have obstruction (Type A in OBR).

 

Since, if there was contact, the BR was "tripped from behind", the tangle/untangle exception does not apply.

 

JM

[Dash Riprock]

Tough one.  I can't see any contact, but the runner immediately blames F2 for his fall, so there probably was contact (RATS are generally too stupid to lie that fast).  7.09(j) Comment says obstruction should be called only in 'very flagrant and violent cases' (this case is neither), but that directive only applies when F2 is fielding the ball.  Arguably, he is not.  Like I said - tough one.

 

In any event, I don't understand the PU's 'point' mechanic.  Is he pointing the ball fair with the wrong hand or is he saying:  "Hey - there's a guy on the ground over there."

[Jocko]

BR stepped in a ghost hole. No contact. And he didn't trip over the bat. I have a big fat THAT'S NOTHING. And HP was pointing it fair.

[Stan W.]

I watched it a bunch of times, cant see any contact..........I would have had nothing and let this play on...

[Majordave]

No contact thus no call for me (Watched it multiple times).  Papa C gives a great example for this no call of Ed Armbrister colliding with Carlton Fisk in 1976 World Series as illustration of the no call point.  Everyone is doing what they should be doing with no extracurriculars.

 

Around here when a guy trips in basepaths or while fielding the call from one dugout or the other, sometimes both is "SNIPER" and the bench jockeys, sometimes assistant coaches as well, all take aim into the sky like they are looking for the sniper up in the hills or a building.  Can be pretty funny when timing is right.

[BigUmpire]

Why is the PU pointing around the area the " contact" was or was not made?

[grayhawk]

I can't tell from the video whether there was contact or not.

 

If there WAS contact, I would have obstruction (Type A in OBR).

 

Since, if there was contact, the BR was "tripped from behind", the tangle/untangle exception does not apply.

 

JM

 

JM, I believe that is the case when the contact is a little farther up the line.  Since this happened directly in front of the plate, I still have nothing.

 

Why is the PU pointing around the area the " contact" was or was not made?

 

Not sure, but I believe he is pointing and saying "that's obstruction" which would be the proper mechanic if that's what he was calling.

[Majordave]

I agree with Grayhawk.  That looks like a "That's Obstruction!/That's Interference!" mechanic.  If he is pointing it fair that is one of the worst jobs doing that I have seen.  

 

The "That's O/I!" call can sometimes appear tentative as you are deciding the IF and WHAT to call.  A fine line to cross when calling those as if you do it with too much voice and conviction and body language you can kill the play unintentionally and you don't really want that unless you REALLY want to stop the action or it has already ended.  For instance, in the case of something like an injury or Malicious Contact and you don't want to unscrew anymore goats on the play but again, using caution (especially with "Type b" obstruction where the play needs to continue to its natural end.)

[UmpJM]

grayhawk,

 

My comments were informed by the following from JEA:

 

The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes,

up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball and tags the fallen

batter-runner. What's the call?

 

RULING: When the batter-runner is tripped from behind, obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is

awarded first base.

 

Again, I didn't see any contact in the video, but if there WERE contact in this sitch, I'm going with Obstruction.

 

JM

[bleacher_bum]

That would be really tough to see (from that angle) that there was, or was not, any contact.  I mean, we can all plainly see it on video, but that would have been a tough call for PU.  Would of probably assumed that F2 tripped BR, hence pointed for obstruction. 

[mjr_2013]

grayhawk,

 

My comments were informed by the following from JEA:

 

The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes,

up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball and tags the fallen

batter-runner. What's the call?

 

RULING: When the batter-runner is tripped from behind, obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is

awarded first base.

 

Again, I didn't see any contact in the video, but if there WERE contact in this sitch, I'm going with Obstruction.

 

JM

 

+1

 

Not to mention the catcher had no legitimate chance at fielding the ball. He has no business running up the line in the first place. If there was contact, I would have obstruction.

 

With that said, I don't see contact. I do like the simultaneous "IT WAS HIM!" from the F2 and BR.

[Dash Riprock]

That looks like a "That's Obstruction!/That's Interference!" mechanic.  If he is pointing it fair that is one of the worst jobs doing that I have seen.  

I agree.  And if he was calling INT/OBS, that is one of the worst jobs doing that I have seen

[BillKen]

I had a very similar play Friday...the batter took a full swing and the ball died on the dirt apron.  BR reacted very slowly and the catcher was on his horse to try and get to the ball.  He slightly pushed the runner out of his way toward first base and fielded the ball.  The runner was out by a country mile.  

 

I analyzed the sitch really quickly and thought....Fielder has a right to the ball and the batter has a right to get out of the box unmolested...it was hard to tell an advantage/disadvantage so I just left it alone.  Nobody said a word and I've wondered ever since if it should be OBS, INT, or nothing.

[grayhawk]

grayhawk,

 

My comments were informed by the following from JEA:

 

The batter tops a ball down the first base line. The batter is advancing toward first base while the catcher comes,

up from behind to field the fair ball. The catcher inadvertently trips the batter...retrieves the ball and tags the fallen

batter-runner. What's the call?

 

RULING: When the batter-runner is tripped from behind, obstruction should be called. The batter-runner is

awarded first base.

 

Again, I didn't see any contact in the video, but if there WERE contact in this sitch, I'm going with Obstruction.

 

JM

 

My impression of Evans' interp is that he is talking about contact happening farther up the line ("comes up behind to field the fair batted ball").  I suppose that could apply to the play in the video (if there was contact), but with it happening immediately in front of the plate, and simultaneously as both left the plate area, I still think "that's nothing" is just as correct.

[UmpJM]

grayhawk,

 

I think you're inserting something that isn't there (i.e., further up the line).

 

As a matter of fact, it seems the further from home plate, the less the "tangle/untangle" exception mentioned in the "comment" even applies.

 

I firmly believe (assuming contact, of course) that "that's nothing" would be incorrect.

 

JM

[Dash Riprock]

 

As a matter of fact, it seems the further from home plate, the less the "tangle/untangle" exception mentioned in the "comment" even applies.

 

I firmly believe (assuming contact, of course) that "that's nothing" would be incorrect.

 

JM

I concur (despite my previous post).  If there was contact that caused the BR to go down, it's not a tangle/untangle, it's a tangle/get tripped and fall on your face.

[maven]

I firmly believe (assuming contact, of course) that "that's nothing" would be incorrect.

 

Is that like strenuously objecting?

 

[grayhawk]

grayhawk,

 

I think you're inserting something that isn't there (i.e., further up the line).

 

As a matter of fact, it seems the further from home plate, the less the "tangle/untangle" exception mentioned in the "comment" even applies.

 

I firmly believe (assuming contact, of course) that "that's nothing" would be incorrect.

 

JM

 

That's what I am saying.

[sdix00]

I think you have to determine whose ball this is.   If it is F2, then nothing.  If the ball belongs to someone else, then OBS. 

[UmpJM]

I think you have to determine whose ball this is.   If it is F2, then nothing.  If the ball belongs to someone else, then OBS. 

 

Steve,

 

So you disagree with Evans?

 

On what basis?

 

JM

[sdix00]

I think you have to determine whose ball this is. If it is F2, then nothing. If the ball belongs to someone else, then OBS.

Steve, So you disagree with Evans? On what basis? JM

I am not sure if am disagreeing with JEA as it is written. My impression from your JEA excerpt is that Evans is not addressing tangle/untangle. It seems to me he is telling us that the catcher is not allowed to pursue a ball through the back of a runner. F2 may have the right of way in the JEA exerpt but that does not include making contact from behind. I may be envisioning the same application as @grayhawk. As far as the video goes, if there is contact, then I believe this is an example of tangle/untangle/nothing IF F2 is the protected fielder. If not protected, then this is OBS. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk