Obstruction? PHL/STL 6/20

[Guest Guest]

Hi all, an inconsequential play in the game, but looking through Jaksa/Roder i think Larry Vanover missed this one.  

 

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v33899645/?query=howard

 

 

Jaksa/Roder p199 states:

 

 

(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)

 

 

On replay, it seems pretty obvious to me that the pitcher "deflected" the ball towards 1B prior to the contact with the B/R (Ryan Howard).  This also assumes that we've already granted the pitcher "protected fielder" status, judging that the pitcher was "fielding", and not "chasing" the deflected ball.  

 

Not trying to roast Vanover here- it was a fast, weird play, one that you probably need to review in your head before you realize what happened- but I'm am just wondering if my interpretation is correct and it should've been obstruction.  

 

And finally, could this play have been subject to video review?? 

 

Thanks!

[Guest Guest]

Not sure what's up with that link, let me try it again:

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v33899645/phistl-cardinals-get-weird-final-out-in-the-9th

[Guest Guest]

Third time's the charm!!

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v33899645

[Guest Bucky Swider]

O/P here again (still waiting for my registration confirmation email to come in).

 

Now I'm thinking that the B/R successfully avoided any contact with the pitcher, therefore negating any change at an obstruction call.  Does that sound right??  

[Guest JSikula93]

O/P here again (still waiting for my registration confirmation email to come in).

 

Now I'm thinking that the B/R successfully avoided any contact with the pitcher, therefore negating any change at an obstruction call.  Does that sound right??  

Don't quote me on it, but I didn't think there needs to be any contact in order for there to be an obstruction. But then I read this and am now second guessing whether there should even be considered obstruction because he was "in the act of fielding the ball"

 

 

"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.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.†It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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. "

[Richvee]

I've got OBS here. F1 was not making a play, nor within a step and a reach of fielding the ball when he obviously impedes the progress of the BR. Also, he was chasing after a deflected ball, which, at the time of the OBS, he does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball. 

[noumpere]

After the ball was deflected, F1 was trying to field it -- he became the protected fielder.  No OBS.

[Richvee]

After the ball was deflected, F1 was trying to field it -- he became the protected fielder.  No OBS.

But he obstructed well after his (unsuccessful) attempt to field the deflected ball. F1 never fielded the ball, nor is he within a step and a reach of fielding the ball after his misplay. Doesn't this matter? 

[th3]

so does this cover interference on a batted ball? (fed 8-4-2)? If a fielder deflects a ball and another fielder is attempting to field it, is he protected? I have OBS...and where does "step and reach" come from? 

 

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved).  

 

 

1. If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection. If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility for avoiding contact.

[afaber12]

I wonder if the perception on the field - and possibly what actually happened - was that the first moment of the BR being hindered occurred either with F1 touching the ball or still within reach, and therefore that hindrance couldn't be deemed obstruction despite the hindrance continuing to occur after the ball was out of F1's reach. I also wonder if that's even a plausible explanation for any play let alone this one.

[buckyswider]

Thanks, OP here again, I finally checked my spam folder for my registration email.  

 

Wondering where the blurb I quoted from Jaksa/Roder came from.  (other than that book, I mean. .  Is it an interpretation or in a rule book somewhere?  

 

(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)

 

afaber12, yes, that is quite possible that Vanover thought that the pitcher was still playing the ball when initial 'obstruction' occurred.  I don't think that's the case from the 2nd look, certainly understandable that that's how it would look live.

 

Also, I'm wondering- does anyone know if contact *does* need to occur for obstruction to occur under MLB code?  (at least in this circumstance, not considering things like verbal obstruction).  I think my views on that might be from an official ruling I got from the ASA umpire-in-chief many years ago, but not sure if I ever confirmed it to also be true in other codes.... 

[noumpere]

1) A good rule of thumb, even though you won't find it in the book exactly is that since the fielder has an absolute right to the batted ball, he has an absolute responsibility to disappear immediately if he doesn't field the ball.  Since he doesn't have an absolute right to a thrown ball, some more leeway can be given.

 

2) Contact does NOT need to happen for there to be OBS -- any (baseball) code.

[basejester]

Contact is not required for obstruction.

 

Some relevant interpretations:

 

PBUC 7.5

 

After a batted ball has been touched (deflected) by an infielder, if the ball then strikes a runner (unintentionally on the part of the runner), it is alive and in play despite the fact that another infielder may be in position to field the ball.  This is not the case if a fielder is making a play on the ball.   Specifically, if a batted ball is deflected by an infielder and another infielder has a play on the ball, the runner must avoid the fielder.  If the runner interferes with the fielder making a play - even though the ball has been touched by another fielder - the runner is declared out.  Under the rules, a fielder making a play on a batted ball takes priority.

 

PBUC 7.27

 

After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and has missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball.  For example:  if 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.  

[maven]

So here's what I see in this play:

1. The batted ball goes to F3 first, and he boots it. He's protected until it gets away from him.
2. At that point, F1 fields the batted/deflected ball, and he becomes the protected fielder (it's still a batted ball even though its fair/foul status has been determined).
3. The protection lasts through the act of "throwing."
4. The BR successfully avoids contacting the protected fielder.
5. The protection ends while BR is avoiding F1.

So, I have nothing here, except an out at 1B.

 

If you like Vanover's call, I recommend his mechanic: since the foofaraw happens just before the out at 1B, there's no time to signal "that's nothing." Just call the out and, when asked, shake your head to signal "that was nothing."

 

Goofy play.

[noumpere]

So, I have nothing here, except an out at 1B.

 

That's what I saw too.

 

I thought I had responded to Richvee's post number 8 but I dont see it now.  If what he said is correct, then I agree with his ruling.  It's not what I remember -- but I didn't watch the video here.

[grayhawk]

So here's what I see in this play:

1. The batted ball goes to F3 first, and he boots it. He's protected until it gets away from him.
2. At that point, F1 fields the batted/deflected ball, and he becomes the protected fielder (it's still a batted ball even though its fair/foul status has been determined).
3. The protection lasts through the act of "throwing."
4. The BR successfully avoids contacting the protected fielder.
5. The protection ends while BR is avoiding F1.

So, I have nothing here, except an out at 1B.

 

If you like Vanover's call, I recommend his mechanic: since the foofaraw happens just before the out at 1B, there's no time to signal "that's nothing." Just call the out and, when asked, shake your head to signal "that was nothing."

 

Goofy play.

 

#3 is the only part that I don't think coincides with this play.  F1 is not protected after he misplays it and it's rolling away from him.  I think a case can be made that F1 is no longer protected at the moment the BR has to leap over him.  I think it's about 50/50 between obstruction and nothing.

[buckyswider]

Interesting takes, thanks all.  Doesn't look like we're going to come to a consensus on the final call, but I'd like to figure out where along the line we differ.

 

I'm agreeing with richvee in #8- by the time the B/R gets to F1, the ball is a good 4-5 feet away towards F3 (powered by deflection, not a throw, it fhat means anything).  

 

Maven, reading through your sequence- If we consider F1's final deflection as "throwing" in your point #3, wouldn't protection end there , and as such F1 needs to "disappear" at that point also?  

 

I concur on Vanover's mechanics, though.  Even though there are absolutely situations where a timely call is necessary, too many guys rush and try to do too much and end up tangled up in incidental mechanics or a premature call.    Even if he had considered obstruction, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea there to wait a beat or two to let the entire scenario sink into your grey matter before signaling the DDB.  Especially on situations like this that you'll only see once in a lifetime.

 

Also, thanks guys for the affirmation about contact not being required for obstruction in any "baseball" code.  My experience was from softball, and I actually got this (that contact is a necessity) from the ASA national umpire in chief at that time.  

[maven]

Maven, reading through your sequence- If we consider F1's final deflection as "throwing" in your point #3, wouldn't protection end there , and as such F1 needs to "disappear" at that point also?  

 

 

Yes, the protection ends there. The runner is right on top of him when he redirects the ball to F3. Too tight to rule that an infraction, IMO.

 

You have to make that judgment watching the real-time video. In slow motion, everything looks like a violation.

[th3]

so (and this is one that I hate that i dont know)..if a batted ball is deflected by a fielder (including the pitcher i assume), and a subsequent fielder is making a play on the ball, he is protected? in all rule sets?..but the original fielder is only protected if he doesnt have to move to field his misplay?

[Richvee]

so (and this is one that I hate that i dont know)..if a batted ball is deflected by a fielder (including the pitcher i assume), and a subsequent fielder is making a play on the ball, he is protected? in all rule sets?..but the original fielder is only protected if he doesnt have to move to field his misplay?

The MLBUM (#43, play 5 in the 2013 edition) says it'd umpire Judgement. If the ball deflects off one fielder, and the umpire decides the second fielder had "a legitimate play on the ball", INT is called. "However, if the umpire judges that the second fielder is does not have a legitimate play on the ball (i.e. Merely moving in the direction of the loose ball", then OBS is called. 

[noumpere]

so (and this is one that I hate that i dont know)..if a batted ball is deflected by a fielder (including the pitcher i assume), and a subsequent fielder is making a play on the ball, he is protected? in all rule sets?..but the original fielder is only protected if he doesnt have to move to field his misplay?

Correct, if the second fielder has a play.

 

In NCAA, the original fielder is again protected specifically by rule once he is again in a position to field the ball.  I don't think the other codes cover this directly, so it's always one for discussion (and has been for many years)