Obstruction before firstbase

[DVA7130]

Interesting play. In real time I could see myself banging the out without time to process.

[Richvee]

I was watching live last night and my 1st thought was, there's 2 fielders in the way, the one without the ball is guilty of OBS. I'd like to think I would have thought the same on the field. 

[Richvee]

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.

 

 

 

Did you see this? Would this change your opinion?

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

Isn't the fact that BR has to deviate from his path  because of F3 enough for OBS? He doesn't necessarily need to break stride, does he?

 

In your opinion, same play, F1 drops the ball, would you have INT?

[Replacematt]

If you ask me, the BR veered and chose the wrong fielder to run in to expecting F3 to make the play.

That's precisely why it's OBS. He was moving fair to avoid Moss, when Otero had protection.

[JDavis225]

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;

 

 

 

I'm far from a  rules guru but working to get there and this part of the rule answers my question. Who was protected? IMO, I'm gonna have to say F1 whom made the play. Thanks Fittske. I'll be digging deeper into my rule book before next season. 

[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.

Did you see this? Would this change your opinion?

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

Isn't the fact that BR has to deviate from his path because of F3 enough for OBS? He doesn't necessarily need to break stride, does he?

In your opinion, same play, F1 drops the ball, would you have INT? Dropping the ball here would make this a totally different play. My main point here is that you can't be guilty of committing obstruction if you are the fielder that fields the ball. My question to you is if you totally remove F3 from this play would you have obstruction or an out? Of course it would have been an out. The fact that F1 fields the ball, this now makes him protected. Since the runner chose to veer into F1 (in an effort to help create the obstruction) instead of veering into F3 (who is now the unprotected player because he didn't feel the ball) was simply a bad decision and a wrong guess on the BR's part.

[zm1283]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Did you see this? Would this change your opinion?

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

Isn't the fact that BR has to deviate from his path  because of F3 enough for OBS? He doesn't necessarily need to break stride, does he?

 

In your opinion, same play, F1 drops the ball, would you have INT?

Dropping the ball here would make this a totally different play. My main point here is that you can't be guilty of committing obstruction if you are the fielder that fields the ball. My question to you is if you totally remove F3 from this play would you have obstruction or an out? Of course it would have been an out. The fact that F1 fields the ball, this now makes him protected. Since the runner chose to veer into F1 (in an effort to help create the interference) instead of veering into F3 (who is now the unprotected player because he didn't feel the ball) was simply a bad decision and a wrong guess on the BR's part.

 

 

The obstruction was on F3. Gerry Davis said that after the game. They didn't call obstruction on F1, who had the ball. 

 

We can't read the BR's mind as to why he veered toward F1. Gibson judged that he did it to avoid F3, who can't legally be fielding a ball at the same time as F1 in regards to a runner being obstructed. I don't believe the BR is responsible for deciding who the protected fielder is. Also, I couldn't tell who had the ball at first when I watched this live. I thought F3 fielded it initially, and Aybar probably did too. That's probably why he ran toward F1 in the first place. Just a guess though.

 

Sometimes you just have to umpire. I think most umpires in amateur games would just get the out here and few coaches would say anything about it because they don't know any better. That's not a dig at anyone, just how I think it would play out.

[Umpire in Chief]

This is a great play for instructional purposes.

 

I had to watch this several times.

 

Lets put it in an order of operation situation.

 

1. Batted fair ball.
2. F1 & F3 both attempt to play on the ball
3. B/R yields to allow the fielding of the ball (see about 0:06)
4. Ball fielded by F1, F3 is still there.
   1. At this point F1 is the protected fielder
   2. Any motion/action by the B/R prior to this does not matter. 
5. B/R has to alter his path to avoid F3
   1. Obstruction at this point.
   2. The fact that he runs into F1 at this point is irrelevant 

I can see where people would want to get the out and that might even be the path of least resistance. 

 

But this is a good strong call by Gibby. He does a good job of selling it. 

 

Thanks for the video @Richvee

[noumpere]

 

Dropping the ball here would make this a totally different play. My main point here is that you can't be guilty of committing obstruction if you are the fielder that fields the ball. My question to you is if you totally remove F3 from this play would you have obstruction or an out? Of course it would have been an out. The fact that F1 fields the ball, this now makes him protected. Since the runner chose to veer into F1 (in an effort to help create the interference) instead of veering into F3 (who is now the unprotected player because he didn't feel the ball) was simply a bad decision and a wrong guess on the BR's part.

 

Why?  If it's within F1's reach, he's still in the act of fielding the ball.

 

Why would BR try to create INT?

[noumpere]

 

 

I can see where people would want to get the out and that might even be the path of least resistance. 

 

 

One way to get the out:

 

1. F3 is protected initially.

2. BR properly avoids F3 -- F1 is liable to be called for OBS, but ...

3. F1 fields the ball and the protection shifts to F1.  Since BR has already avoided F3, there's no OBS.

[Umpire in Chief]

 

 

 

I can see where people would want to get the out and that might even be the path of least resistance. 

 

 

One way to get the out:

 

1. F3 is protected initially.

2. BR properly avoids F3 -- F1 is liable to be called for OBS, but ...

3. F1 fields the ball and the protection shifts to F1.  Since BR has already avoided F3, there's no OBS.

 

I can see protecting F3 easily b/c who is generally the better fielder and, all else not withstanding, who generally is responsible for making a play in that area. Pitchers are for the most part told to yield to other fielders when fielding a ball.  

[Fittske24]

Dropping the ball here would make this a totally different play. My main point here is that you can't be guilty of committing obstruction if you are the fielder that fields the ball. My question to you is if you totally remove F3 from this play would you have obstruction or an out? Of course it would have been an out. The fact that F1 fields the ball, this now makes him protected. Since the runner chose to veer into F1 (in an effort to help create the interference) instead of veering into F3 (who is now the unprotected player because he didn't feel the ball) was simply a bad decision and a wrong guess on the BR's part.

Why?  If it's within F1's reach, he's still in the act of fielding the ball.

 

Why would BR try to create INT?

I ment create obstruction not interfere...I edited my original post.... it's a different situation because for a fielder to be protected with the "step in a reach concept" the initial bounding ball had to be mis played. In this case it was fielded cleanly by f1.

The protecting of a field or provision is simply a guideline for the calling umpire to use when contact between a fielder and a runner occurs that doesn't allow for the play to be completed. Ao tge question becomes what is the determining action that causes obstruction? Is it the collision? Is it the runner attempting to avoid F1 & F3? By rule the batter runner is required to avoid a fielder fielding a ground ball. So the act of him altering his path to avoid the fielder this alone can not be obstruction.

[law_reb]

I would have had an out on this play.  I would not have judged obstruction by either fielder.  The 1st baseman was inside the field of play and not in the path of the runner to advance to 1st base.  The runner veered left, into the field of play, causing the collision on this play.  In my judgment, watching the replay, if the runner continues straight in his path to 1st base there would not have been any obsruction or interference on the play.  The runner was the cause of all contact.  I have nothing, except a tag and an out.  If the umpire judged the runner veered to avoid contact with the 1st baseman, and he wasn't protected, then I agree it would be obstruction.  I just didn't see any reason the runner needed to alter his path.  In my opinion, the fact he altered his path does not by itself mean there was obstruction.  The umpire would have to judge that the fielder caused the alteration.  In this instance, I didn't see the fielder to be in his path.    

[blue23ll]

The other complicating factor on this play was the fact that either F1 or F3 could have very easily caught the ball. It was initially thought that F3 did in fact catch the ball. Doesn't the BR have to make an effort to avoid a fielder attempting to make a play? F3 after F1 made the catch cannot be expected to evaporate from the field. This was a very complicated scenario, one that I do not think is a case book play for obstruction. 

[noumpere]

 

By rule the batter runner is required to avoid a the single protected fielder fielding a ground ball. So the act of him altering his path to avoid the fielder this alone can not be obstruction.

 

IF BR moved to avoid the second, unprotected, fielder, then it's OBS -- even if this second fielder was attempting to field the ground ball.

[noumpere]

I would have had an out on this play.  I would not have judged obstruction by either fielder.  The 1st baseman was inside the field of play and not in the path of the runner to advance to 1st base.  The runner veered left, into the field of play, causing the collision on this play.  In my judgment, watching the replay, if the runner continues straight in his path to 1st base there would not have been any obsruction or interference on the play.  The runner was the cause of all contact.  I have nothing, except a tag and an out.  If the umpire judged the runner veered to avoid contact with the 1st baseman, and he wasn't protected, then I agree it would be obstruction.  I just didn't see any reason the runner needed to alter his path.  In my opinion, the fact he altered his path does not by itself mean there was obstruction.  The umpire would have to judge that the fielder caused the alteration.  In this instance, I didn't see the fielder to be in his path.    

A good example of what I meant in post 23 when I waid if you dont' have OBS, that's okay -- just be sure it's supported.

[afaber12]

The other complicating factor on this play was the fact that either F1 or F3 could have very easily caught the ball. It was initially thought that F3 did in fact catch the ball. Doesn't the BR have to make an effort to avoid a fielder attempting to make a play? F3 after F1 made the catch cannot be expected to evaporate from the field. This was a very complicated scenario, one that I do not think is a case book play for obstruction. 

 

The obstruction rule does in some cases expect a fielder to evaporate. The big, obvious example is from last year's World Series: a fielder legitimately attempts to make a play in a position that would otherwise put him at risk of an obstruction call, the ball gets past him when he's unable to field it cleanly, and when the runner attempts to advance immediately after the misplay he's obstructed.

 

Yes runners are required to avoid hindering a fielder attempting to field a batted ball - a lack of intent to hinder isn't enough. But only one fielder can be considered to be fielding the ball; all other fielders have the same type of requirement to absolutely not cause hindrance to a runner attempting to advance.

 

Now could you say that the hindrance to the BR occurred while F3 was attempting to field the ball and was the protected fielder, so that could not be obstruction, and that the next hindrance occurred when the BR collided with F1 who by that time had possession of the ball and thus could not possibly be called for obstruction? Maybe. I don't know if I've seen a situation where you could really judge the protection to have moved from one fielder to another and for there to have been potential obstruction caused by a fielder who was protected at the time but was not ultimately the one to field the ball. I don't know if there's provision for what was at the time a legal hindrance to retroactively become obstruction. Or perhaps its more a case of retroactively deciding who the protected fielder was, and then determining whether the hindrance was by the protected fielder or a different fielder.

 

I'm realising that I'm not certain I follow what I've just written, and I know what its supposed to be communicating. If I come up with something clearer, I'll let you know. (Also if someone can understand and explain what I've written, go for your life. )

[Fittske24]

By rule the batter runner is required to avoid a the single protected fielder fielding a ground ball. So the act of him altering his path to avoid the fielder this alone can not be obstruction.

IF BR moved to avoid the second, unprotected, fielder, then it's OBS -- even if this second fielder was attempting to field the ground ball.

At the point that the runner alters his path we could also argue that F3 is the protected player. We could also argue that F3 continues to be the protected player right up to the point when F1 fields the ball at the same moment the runner begins to alter his path. When the ball is fielded cleanly by F1 prior to the contact, in my judgement this removes the possibility of obstruction by F1 (because has the ball) and removes the possibility of obstruction by F3 due to the runners decision to avoid a protected player who was in the act of fielding. If the runner decided to move the opposite way and contacted F3 with F1 fielding the ball then I think it would have been a no brainer obstruction call.

[blue23ll]

Let's play this situation out for a second. F1 and F3 both reach up and both gloves are reaching for the ball, and they are both in the baseline. BR runs into F3 just as F1 pulls the ball out of his mitt to make the catch. Who gets protection and who obstructs? OR, the ball bounces off both fielders gloves and falls to the ground, now what do you have? Either of these occurrences could have happened in this sitch. 

[Fittske24]

Let's play this situation out for a second. F1 and F3 both reach up and both gloves are reaching for the ball, and they are both in the baseline. BR runs into F3 just as F1 pulls the ball out of his mitt to make the catch. Who gets protection and who obstructs? OR, the ball bounces off both fielders gloves and falls to the ground, now what do you have? Either of these occurrences could have happened in this sitch.

In your situation you have the fielder colliding with F3 simultaneously as F1 fields the ball. You would protect the fielder who originally had the best chance to field the ball. However if you have both fielders basically standing in the same spot attempting to field the same ball, and the runner collides with one or both of them, has the runner done a good enough job to avoid the fielder regardless of who should be protected?

.....But this is not what happens here in the original play. The ball was fielded cleanly before any contact with the fielder.

[noumpere]

 

At the point that the runner alters his path we could also argue that F3 is the protected player. We could also argue that F3 continues to be the protected player right up to the point when F1 fields the ball at the same moment the runner begins to alter his path. When the ball is fielded cleanly by F1 prior to the contact, in my judgement this removes the possibility of obstruction by F1 (because has the ball) and removes the possibility of obstruction by F3 due to the runners decision to avoid a protected player who was in the act of fielding.

 

Pretty much what I said in post #35.

[umpstu]

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.

I think Gibson realized he was pointing at the wrong fielder and corrected it. What a ballsy call, though.

[Rich Ives]

I would have had an out on this play.  I would not have judged obstruction by either fielder.  The 1st baseman was inside the field of play and not in the path of the runner to advance to 1st base.  The runner veered left, into the field of play, causing the collision on this play.  In my judgment, watching the replay, if the runner continues straight in his path to 1st base there would not have been any obsruction or interference on the play.  The runner was the cause of all contact.  I have nothing, except a tag and an out.  If the umpire judged the runner veered to avoid contact with the 1st baseman, and he wasn't protected, then I agree it would be obstruction.  I just didn't see any reason the runner needed to alter his path.  In my opinion, the fact he altered his path does not by itself mean there was obstruction.  The umpire would have to judge that the fielder caused the alteration.  In this instance, I didn't see the fielder to be in his path.    

 

The runner can run wherever he wants to run. You can't punish him for that,

[Rich Ives]

 

 

By rule the batter runner is required to avoid a the single protected fielder fielding a ground ball. So the act of him altering his path to avoid the fielder this alone can not be obstruction.

IF BR moved to avoid the second, unprotected, fielder, then it's OBS -- even if this second fielder was attempting to field the ground ball.

At the point that the runner alters his path we could also argue that F3 is the protected player. We could also argue that F3 continues to be the protected player right up to the point when F1 fields the ball at the same moment the runner begins to alter his path. When the ball is fielded cleanly by F1 prior to the contact, in my judgement this removes the possibility of obstruction by F1 (because has the ball) and removes the possibility of obstruction by F3 due to the runners decision to avoid a protected player who was in the act of fielding. If the runner decided to move the opposite way and contacted F3 with F1 fielding the ball then I think it would have been a no brainer obstruction call.

 

 

Absolute rubbish! The runner MUST avoid the protected fielder. MUST. As in MUST. It's required. You'd punish him for doing what is required? Then: The other fielder cannot obstruct him while he's doing the required thing.

[Fittske24]

Absolute rubbish! The runner MUST avoid the protected fielder. MUST. As in MUST. It's required. You'd punish him for doing what is required? Then: The other fielder cannot obstruct him while he's doing the required thing.

You are correct the runner MUST avoid the protected fielder which he was doing when he was avoiding F3, making F1 the unprotected player "in jeopardy" of committing obstruction. However you can not have a "projected" obstruction....meaning it isn't obstruction until it's actually obstruction. The definition of obstruction is clear:

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.

F3 can't commit obstruction because the runner had already altered his path away from F3 since he is the original "protected fielder" in the act of fielding. F1 (also in the act of fielding) who is the unprotected player, is in jeopardy of committing obstruction..... right up until he fields the ball BEFORE any contact that "impedes the progress of the runner".