Obstruction before firstbase

[Rich Ives]

 

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".

 

 

That doesn't even make sense. You're protecting F3 while F1 fields the ball. This isn't Calvinball.

[Rich Ives]

This is amazing. This play is being discussed on two different boards and on both of them posters are twisting and turning the play and the rationale so they can avoid calling obstruction. Amazing.

[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.

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

[ricka56]

Just curious, at what BR step was F3 in position to obstruct him ?

 

Left foot 1

 

right foot 1

 

left foot 2

 

right foot 2

 

left foot 3

 

right foot 3...couldn't have been here...F1 has caught the pop-up.

[Replacematt]

Left foot 2.

[noumpere]

I don't think LF 3 is where it would have been had the defense not been in the way.

 

And I disagree that with your statment that the OBS "couldn't have been here...F1 has caught the pop-up" on RF 3.  F1 can't OBS now, but F3 certainly can.

[Ump29]

Was originally going to think/say interference but obs is the right call. Ignore the running lane bit on this play.

[Rennolds]

The lighting due to no hat and a hsm could have something to do with it, just saying. Three pages of replies and not one jab at his helmet hair. 

[Rulekeep]

The lighting due to no hat and a hsm could have something to do with it, just saying. Three pages of replies and not one jab at his helmet hair.

That's because it's amazing helmet hair.

[Fittske24]

That doesn't even make sense. You're protecting F3 while F1 fields the ball. This isn't Calvinball.

How does it not make since? The provision in 7.09j says if two fielders have a chance to field a batted ball the one that has the better chance to field the batted ball is protected. So yes F3 is the protected fielder because he has the best chance to field the ball (based on the judgement of the umpire), AND F1, although not originally protected, becomes protected because he fields the batted ball prior to the contact/obstruction.

Now the only way I can see this being obstruction is if the plate umpire protected F1 (assuming F1 had the best chance at making the play) thus making F3 unprotected. Then calling obstruction on F3 for altering the runners path.

[th3]

It appears that the runner avoided F3 because he thought F3 was going to field the ball...so maybe F3 should be the protected fielder...but you'd have to call INT if he ran into F1 as he was fielding...so maybe F1 should be the protected fielder...right?

[noumpere]

It appears that the runner avoided F3 because he thought F3 was going to field the ball...so maybe F3 should be the protected fielder...but you'd have to call INT if he ran into F1 as he was fielding...so maybe F1 should be the protected fielder...right?

The protected fielder can change during the play.

Now the only way I can see this being obstruction is if the plate umpire protected F1 (assuming F1 had the best chance at making the play) thus making F3 unprotected. Then calling obstruction on F3 for altering the runners path.

 

Isn't that exactly what the PU said he did?

[Richvee]

 

Isn't that exactly what the PU said he did?

 

 

yes it is

[ricka56]

And I disagree that with your statment that the OBS "couldn't have been here...F1 has caught the pop-up" on RF 3.  F1 can't OBS now, but F3 certainly can.

 

If there was no obstruction prior to his pop-up being caught, how could anyone be guilty of obstruction after the catch?

 

Left foot 2.

 

I have no problem with someone judging that LF2-RF2 was a step to the right to avoid F3, but what I think RF2 is is a plant step to turn left to avoid F1 who was cutting across his path at a 90 degree angle collision course (if F3 had stayed back, BR would have taken the same path). But then F1 pinballed off of F3 after the catch, back into BR's path ...bang, boom. Without the collision, I doubt there would have been any obstruction call, just a satisfactory interference avoidance.

 

Gutsy call, though.

[mrumpiresir]

Just curious where all this discussion about a "pop up" comes from.  This was a batted ball that bounced in front of the plate, then went in the air down the first base line.  

 

If this was a pop up we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[noumpere]

Just curious where all this discussion about a "pop up" comes from.  This was a batted ball that bounced in front of the plate, then went in the air down the first base line.  

 

If this was a pop up we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thanks.

 

That's how I remembered the play, and thus how I (mis-)read ricka's post #54 (or 56 or whatever -- the one with the pictures).

 

I agree that IF it was a pop-up, that even if BR was OBS, the OBS would be ignored, and certainly once the ball is caught the OBS can't happen.

 

The step-by-step pictures are interesting.

[Rulekeep]

Am I the only one noticing GD's face when the umpires get together. It's like "Gosh, Greg. Can we please stop doing this?"

[Haid D' Salaami]

Am I the only one noticing GD's face when the umpires get together. It's like "Gosh, Greg. Can we please stop doing this?"

No you cant.. cause that crap dont happen on the field... in the locker room maybe, but not when cameras are present.....it was a really good and tough call.. but it was the right call.. tough as it may be and really hard for most of us to call...

[Magic]

Am I the only one noticing GD's face when the umpires get together. It's like "Gosh, Greg. Can we please stop doing this?"

I can guarantee there was no specific look like that on GD's face. He is an umpire 1000%. No way would have a look like that for national TV to run with.