Obstruction call?

[Jglopez7]

Feedback?

[grayhawk]

No question that it's obstruction.  The runner was clearly hindered by F1 who was not in possession, nor in the act of fielding the ball.  UVA went on to win the game anyway, but it took several more innings.

[Thunderheads]

I'm not so sure ......i think that stutter step by R3 was because he thought F1 caught the ball, ...he continued when he saw him drop it .......but you could easily argue it either way I'm sure

[Dean]

Yes obstruction. 

 

Clearly, (after watching it 3 times ), the defender, that missed the ball, turned into to baseline causing the runner to hesitate. (Stop at the 8 - 9 second mark) Runner alters his path to miss the fielder.

 

2-54

Obstruction: The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

A.R. 2—When a fielder has made an attempt to field a batted or thrown ball, has missed and is in pursuit of the ball, he may no longer be considered “in the act†of fielding.

 

(Not applicable o this video - but included for completeness.)

A.R. 3—After a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and the ball is “within a step and a reach†the fielder is still considered “in the act.â€

[dumbdumb]

 

 

Virginia 8th - Papi, M. fouled out to 1b (1-0 B). Towns, K. doubled down the rf line (1-2 BFKF). McCarthy, J. flied out to cf (0-0). Fisher, D. reached on a throwing error by ss, advanced to second (1-2 KKBF); Towns, K. advanced to third, out at home 1b to c to 3b to p to 1b. 0 runs, 1 hit, 1 error, 1 LOB.

 

No obstruction, cause the umpire said no obstruction.

[Dean]

 

 

"Virginia 8th - Papi, M. fouled out to 1b (1-0 B). Towns, K. doubled down the rf line (1-2 BFKF). McCarthy, J. flied out to cf (0-0). Fisher, D. reached on a throwing error by ss, advanced to second (1-2 KKBF); Towns, K. advanced to third, out at home 1b to c to 3b to p to 1b. 0 runs, 1 hit, 1 error, 1 LOB.

 

No obstruction, cause the umpire said no obstruction."

 

- I think we all understand this; the discussion is if the play should have been adjudicated as obstruction.  That way we all learn from the case play.

 

[Rich Ives]

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction
SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

[noumpere]

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction

SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

I don't think he's in the act of fielding any more.  The defensive player by home is now picking up the ball when the contact (or near contact) is happening.

 

By rule, I think this should have been OBS.

[Rich Ives]

 

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction

SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

I don't think he's in the act of fielding any more.  The defensive player by home is now picking up the ball when the contact (or near contact) is happening.

 

By rule, I think this should have been OBS.

 

 

The throw sucked. In the dirt and toward 1B side of the play. Fielder turned and bent over to attempt to get it. A miniscule amount of time later R3 had to dodge.

 

Not obstruction.

 

 

FWIW - stupid baserunning or stupid base coaching.

[grayhawk]

 

 

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction

SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

I don't think he's in the act of fielding any more.  The defensive player by home is now picking up the ball when the contact (or near contact) is happening.

 

By rule, I think this should have been OBS.

 

 

The throw sucked. In the dirt and toward 1B side of the play. Fielder turned and bent over to attempt to get it. A miniscule amount of time later R3 had to dodge.

 

Not obstruction.

 

 

FWIW - stupid baserunning or stupid base coaching.

 

 

The fielder bent down to catch the poor throw, and immediately turned to find it.  It was at this point he hindered the runner while the ball was 6-8 feet past him.  Not within a step and a reach.  Even though the fielder didn't know where the ball was, this should be considered "chasing after the ball" and should be called obstruction.  It will be interesting to see if this video is one Paronto reviews next year.

[Jimurray]

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction

SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

I don't think he's in the act of fielding any more.  The defensive player by home is now picking up the ball when the contact (or near contact) is happening.

 

By rule, I think this should have been OBS.

 

The throw sucked. In the dirt and toward 1B side of the play. Fielder turned and bent over to attempt to get it. A miniscule amount of time later R3 had to dodge.

 

Not obstruction.

 

 

FWIW - stupid baserunning or stupid base coaching.

I don't think he gets protected when the ball is not close:

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€

[johnnyg08]

I saw this play live.  No obstruction.  He turned back b/c he thought that F1 was going to catch the ball.

 

If he keeps running as though he's going to run into the tag, then yes, you'd have OBS...easy call.  

 

In this case 100% not OBS under any rule set.

[Dean]

 

 

NCAA has the "in the act of fielding" language.  Therefore, as that was happening, it was not obstruction.

 

Obstruction

SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

I don't think he's in the act of fielding any more.  The defensive player by home is now picking up the ball when the contact (or near contact) is happening.

 

By rule, I think this should have been OBS.

 

 

The throw sucked. In the dirt and toward 1B side of the play. Fielder turned and bent over to attempt to get it. A miniscule amount of time later R3 had to dodge.

 

Not obstruction.

 

 

FWIW - stupid baserunning or stupid base coaching.

 

 

Rule 2-54

 

A.R. 2—When a fielder has made an attempt to field a batted or thrown ball, has missed and is in pursuit of the ball, he may no longer be considered “in the act†of fielding.

 

(Not applicable o this video - but included for completeness.)

A.R. 3—After a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and the ball is “within a step and a reach†the fielder is still considered “in the act.â€

 

 

(Note:  Live I probably have nothing, but by strict rule reading it was obstruction)

[Jglopez7]

This ball was thrown not batted. OBS all day in my book. Then again that's maybe the reason why I watch the game on my couch ):

[Kevin_K]

I too watched this live, and when it occured I thought, "Hey (cause I needed to get my own attention).... that's obstruction."

 

It was primarily because F1was near R3 and R3 stutter-stepped while the two were close. When the replay was shown, though, R3 did not seem to be impeded in any way by F1, so I said to myself, "Nice call!" and "Excellent game mangement!" when PU addressed the neck slap tag by F3.

[dumbdumb]

At :7, the runner is putting on the brakes as the ball goes over his shoulder and he sees the pitcher ready to catch the ball, then as he sees the pitcher miss the throw and the ball getting away, he starts for home, only to be met by the pitcher in the base path. The pitcher has instinctively (because the ball has been missed by him) followed the ball behind him and is still in the middle (unintentionally-which doesn't matter) of the base path with his body square to the right fielder without the ball rather than with the ball. The pitcher looks over his right shoulder for the runner while turning his body a complete 180 degrees and is now looking square to the stands and tries to go backwards into the infield grass to get out of the way. While in the base path instinctively and unintentionally doing the manuevers above, the runner had to slow down/break stride due the time the pitcher spent within the base path without the ball, and it looks like he put his hands out and may have contacted the pitcher but that is hard to tell. IMHO this would constitute obstruction but that is why I will never get out of wiffle z backyard ball.

Of course all runners are taught to go after that fielder in the base path and make contact so everyone knows that fielder is in the way (and don't leave the umpire hung up with a did he break stride decision like this one) not to try and slow up and tippy toe and mickey mouse around the fielder.

It will definitely be interesting how NCAA would like this interpreted. Does not matter which way they go with this, as long as the reason, which it looks like have been pretty much brought out above, is clarified so that everyone knows, and would make this same no obstruction call that was made or the obstruction call if the NCAA deems that should be the way to handle this.

[johnnyg08]

I have this on video I just need to get it so I can put it on here.  There's no depth on the play from this angle.  F1 is not impeding the runner's path from the other angle.

 

From this clip, I would agree it looks like OBS.  In reality, you need to see it from another angle, most importantly from the plate umpire's angle.

[dumbdumb]

I have this on video I just need to get it so I can put it on here.  There's no depth on the play from this angle.  F1 is not impeding the runner's path from the other angle.

 

From this clip, I would agree it looks like OBS.  In reality, you need to see it from another angle, most importantly from the plate umpire's angle.

Hope you can get that other angle, and as we all know that is what it is all about. Glad it looks like OBS to you from the angle we see from the OP. That is why we all say HTBT for many plays that are verbally described in writing. Seeing these type plays and what those who run these organizations say is the interpretation, helps all of us when these plays happen to all of us under that particular rule set, and when it happens and we interpret the rule correctly as the governing body wants, we know and get the self satisfaction that we got the play and interpretation correct.

As there has not been some kind of retraction for the call made, which has been done before, obviously the correct interpretation was used on this play, and as you say is more evident from another angle. Obviously some saw this just from the OP and to those who have described the no obstruction in detail from the OP, kudos go out to them.

[johnnyg08]

I will just record it off of the tv.  I don't have to break down the game, edit, and publish right now...I will get that other angle.

[dumbdumb]

I will just record it off of the tv.  I don't have to break down the game, edit, and publish right now...I will get that other angle.

Thanks. And maybe Towns will learn to run into that fielder next time and "draw the obstruction so to speak", and help end the game earlier, and get drafted.

[johnnyg08]

I was thinking the same thing.  But when you're in a rundown you don't plan on a poor throw.  He was competing by retreating in an effort to remain in the rundown.  

 

He gives up, runs into the tag so to speak, he gets the call.

[JaxRolo]

I'm the OBS side. Don't see how it could not be. Especially when you have to make the call immediately.

[Forest Ump]

Who want to take bets that this one makes it on the test next year?