Obstruction before firstbase

[Richvee]

This should generate some discussion. 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v35758245

announcers  

[Lindsay]

MLBAM has titled the video clip, "Umpires rule interference." Lovely.

 

No words to really describe this play other than what I called the video on UEFL: "Broadcasters reignite the 'interference vs obstruction' drinking game on OBS call in the 9th." Also, MLBUM #43 (7).

 

Also taking prop bets on when Torre will officially deny the protest.

[grayhawk]

Great reference Gil - spot on.  Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

 

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

[Richvee]

Great reference Gil - spot on.  Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

 

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

Or is it that since F1 fielded the ball, F3 is not the protected fielder and therefore technically has no business in Aybar's path to 1st therefore, OBS on F3? 

[grayhawk]

Great reference Gil - spot on. Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

Or is it that since F1 fielded the ball, F3 is not the protected fielder and therefore technically has no business in Aybar's path to 1st therefore, OBS on F3?

Could be. Either way, the protest will be denied.

[Richvee]

 

 

Great reference Gil - spot on. Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

Or is it that since F1 fielded the ball, F3 is not the protected fielder and therefore technically has no business in Aybar's path to 1st therefore, OBS on F3?

 

Could be. Either way, the protest will be denied.

 

Agreed

[Lindsay]

GD said post game the OBS was on F3, leading me to assume F1 was the protected fielder.

[grayhawk]

They must have judged that Aybar had to run around F3 which caused him to run into F1.

[Richvee]

Great reference Gil - spot on.  Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

 

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

Should have read Gil's MLBUM reference before posting. I think you have it right. 

[Richvee]

 

Great reference Gil - spot on.  Interesting that Aybar ran into F1, who actually did field the ball, but perhaps the umpires decided that F3 was the protected fielder.

 

Smart play by Aybar, as he was dead to rights if not for the OBS call.

Should have read Gil's MLBUM reference before posting. I think you have it right. 

 

haha..or not 

[afaber12]

You can see BR zig inside ahead of the collision (in slo-mo almost feels like days before), and I think he tries to zag back towards foul territory just before the collision. As much as he might have been better off heading foul in the first place, and taking advantage of F3 hindering with F1, there's no requirement for a runner to take the optimal path whether attempting to avoid an obstruction or not. As whacky and ugly a play as it looks at first glance, and as much as there'd be plenty of people watching this play who at the very least would be scratching their heads about how the umpires called it, I'm certain they got this one right.

 

I've also got no idea how anyone would think this protest would get up. Last time I checked obstruction was a judgement call - which can't be protested - and the award following the obstruction, which also has a judgement element, followed the requirements set out in the rule. I'd have been happy to take the A's $50 for that protest.

[th3]

i dont see obs

[Thunderheads]

i dont see obs

if there was only one fielder, maybe ......but there was two ........ and BOTH can't be making a play ....it can only be one.......

 

it looks goofy, but I understand it

[scrounge]

I agree with the call...Aybar had to veer inside to avoid F3 when the ball was still in the air, that's the hindrance right there. Since F1 fielded it, F3 couldn't have had protection, so OBS to me.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I think a legit question as well is how many of us lesser umpires would have called this obstruction? I doubt I would have been quick enough to interpret this play as such.

 

I understand their call.

 

What say you other guys?

[jjb]

Two fielders standing shoulder-to-shoulder in Aybar's basepath: looked like a Parchisi game.

[stevis]

I think a legit question as well is how many of us lesser umpires would have called this obstruction? I doubt I would have been quick enough to interpret this play as such.

 

I understand their call.

 

What say you other guys?

I'd like to think I would--two guys fielding the ball, only one can be protected, the other must be obstructing.  But I was primed by the headline before I watched the play, so I'm not going to give myself 100% credit either.

[th3]

as i look again of course its OBS..its hard out there man

[JDavis225]

Why don't we have an out and a "that's nothing" safe signal? The runner was in fair territory the entire time on his way to first base. At first glance, I had interference more than anything. There was a path for him to take which was the runner's lane. Both defensive players were in fair territory.

[Thunderheads]

Why don't we have an out and a "that's nothing" safe signal? The runner was in fair territory the entire time on his way to first base. At first glance, I had interference more than anything. There was a path for him to take which was the runner's lane. Both defensive players were in fair territory.

running lane means nothing on this play ......

only one player can be protected as making the play.  both players are in Aybar's path, ...F1 has the ball and made the play, ...so ....F3 isn't protected and is called for OBS

[blue23ll]

 

Why don't we have an out and a "that's nothing" safe signal? The runner was in fair territory the entire time on his way to first base. At first glance, I had interference more than anything. There was a path for him to take which was the runner's lane. Both defensive players were in fair territory.

running lane means nothing on this play ......

only one player can be protected as making the play.  both players are in Aybar's path, ...F1 has the ball and made the play, ...so ....F3 isn't protected and is called for OBS

 

This is the key to this sitch. Two players converging on a ball and the runner, the player who touches/fields the ball is protected, the other player if they hinder the runner, obstructs. Now, what would have happened if F1 had dropped the ball on contact? What do you have?

[goody14]

 

This is the key to this sitch. Two players converging on a ball and the runner, the player who touches/fields the ball is protected, the other player if they hinder the runner, obstructs. Now, what would have happened if F1 had dropped the ball on contact? What do you have?

 

Wouldn't matter, right? 

 

If umpires rule that F1 is the protected fielder, then once BR is obstructed by F3 the play is dead and nothing else matters since it was a BR obstructed before 1st.

[noumpere]

Why don't we have an out and a "that's nothing" safe signal? The runner was in fair territory the entire time on his way to first base. At first glance, I had interference more than anything. There was a path for him to take which was the runner's lane. Both defensive players were in fair territory.

 

Yeah -- that wouldn't be confusing. 

 

Which is where he's allowed to be  unless, as a general statement, the ball is being thrown to first --- which it wasn't.  So, the running lane doesn't matter on this play.

 

Put the same play happening with R1 and F1/F4 between first and second.  Now what do you have?  It's the same play here.  And, if your judgement is that he interfered before he was obstructed, well, that's okay -- as long as you can support it with the rules.

[Fittske24]

7.09(j) It is interference by a batter or a runner when—He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

In the referenced play U1 appears to protect F3 and rules F1 is the obstructing player. BUT..... F1 is the player that actually fields the ball. Last time I checked how can you obstruct when you are the fielder that ultimately fields the ball? This is why I probably allow the out to stand. Also worth noting, the BR does not appear to slow down or break his stride (even though he does appear to veer further into fair territory) prior to the collision. If you ask me, the BR veered and chose the wrong fielder to run in to expecting F3 to make the play.

[SoCal Lurker]

  So the As protest the judgmdent call

Why didn't they ask for replay review?  Is obstruction not reviewable?