A Step and a Reach?

[CricketChapman]

Note:  I did not listen to the commentary on this one, so feel free to tell me how bad it was.  Also, ignore the MLB title for this video; at about the 1:05 mark, you can see PU saying "You have to avoid him."  Really an interesting INT call here.

[Replacematt]

It was bad, insisting that the fact he was out of the lane was the reason the call was made.

This is INT, no matter where he was.

[WIUMP]

Ball is farther away than a step and a reach. F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball when contact is made. RLI doesn't apply (contrary to what MKE's idiot commentary guy thinks). Please explain.

[jpperez14]

This was interesting. At first look, I was thinking INT, but then I started to wonder because he did lose possession of the ball. I believe had he been running in foul territory to begin with, there would be little to no contact, he would have had the opportunity to go around and beat him to the bag. Poor base running, poor defense, results in crazy play.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

could obstruction not be consideration here?? Just askin

 

[noumpere]

Ball is farther away than a step and a reach. F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball when contact is made. RLI doesn't apply (contrary to what MKE's idiot commentary guy thinks). Please explain.

​Disagree.  I think INT is the correct call.

 

If you had the ball farther away, then OBS would have to be called.

[mrumpiresir]

Ball is farther away than a step and a reach. F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball when contact is made. RLI doesn't apply (contrary to what MKE's idiot commentary guy thinks). Please explain.

​Gotta disagree.  Ball was definitely within a step and a reach so fielder was still in the act of fielding the ball and is protected. Interference is the correct call.  Running lane has nothing to do with this call.

[johnnyg08]

This is interference.  The runner's lane is irrelevant piece here.  The fielder is still in the act of fielding the ball because of the step-and-a-reach clause and that he did not have to chase the baseball.

[Richvee]

Agree on INT. Good piece of video to learn the meaning of step and a reach. Just remember to hit the mute button. 

Even more annoying to me than the a clueless announcers is MLB posting the video with the wrong applicable rule in the title. 

[JaxRolo]

Good call!. Announcers don't know crap.

[maven]

could obstruction not be consideration here?? Just askin

​Yes: contact on a batted ball is something, almost never nothing. If the fielder is protected, INT. If not, OBS.

Here's the moment of contact. The ball is within reach of an unhindered player (he would not have to move off his spot to retrieve the ball).

[JaxRolo]

Ball is farther away than a step and a reach. F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball when contact is made. RLI doesn't apply (contrary to what MKE's idiot commentary guy thinks). Please explain.

​No way. INT all day long!

[zoops]

Is this (by the book) PU's call since it is on the home plate side of 1B?  Or could either of them call it?

 

[JaxRolo]

Is this (by the book) PU's call since it is on the home plate side of 1B?  Or could either of them call it?

 

​Either one.

[noumpere]

Is this (by the book) PU's call since it is on the home plate side of 1B?  Or could either of them call it?

 

​I think that not only can either one get it, but that it's primarily U1's call, not PU's call.

[maven]

​I think that not only can either one get it, but that it's primarily U1's call, not PU's call.

​U1 has primary for tags from the 45' to 1B, but determining primary for this call is moot. With the ball on the other side of F3, U1 is going to defer to PU's judgment regarding whether the fielder is still protected.

Since INT vs OBS turns on that judgment, this ends up being PU's call in this case. As with swipe tags, the call should go to whoever has the best look, even if he's not the closest umpire.

And, as usual, if you see INT or OBS, call it.

[johnnyg08]

​U1 has primary for tags from the 45' to 1B, but determining primary for this call is moot. With the ball on the other side of F3, U1 is going to defer to PU's judgment regarding whether the fielder is still protected.

Since INT vs OBS turns on that judgment, this ends up being PU's call in this case. As with swipe tags, the call should go to whoever has the best look, even if he's not the closest umpire.

And, as usual, if you see INT or OBS, call it.

​Some crews will pregame a handoff at the cutout.  

Maven's post summed it up nicely about "sometimes you just have to umpire"

This comes down to being a good partner in the two umpire system as well.  "I didn't get a good look is not an acceptable response" 

Tell you partner what you have.  

Edited June 22, 2015 by johnnyg08

[Thunderheads]

Boy, ...even MLB screwed the pooch on this one saying Hundley was called out for outside the running lane (title of video)...unreal  

[johnnyg08]

Boy, ...even MLB screwed the pooch on this one saying Hundley was called out for outside the running lane (title of video)...unreal  

​Search for obstruction videos...hint:  you'll be better off searching interference to find obstruction clips.  

I think that in many case their video people are not necessarily baseball people. 

[scrounge]

Frankly, I think OBS or INT can be justified in this case. F3 flubs the fielding and retreats back to the base and, IMO, the ball is further than a step and reach at that point. The ball THEN rolls into being closer again, as the photo above shows, but only because F3 stopped to let it come back to him. Maybe it still within a big step and reach the whole time, I dunno. I'm fine if it was called INT and fine with OBS. Sometimes it really can go both ways

[johnnyg08]

In this case, I think you're getting pretty granular regarding him being more than a reach away.  I don't think we should get to the point where we're getting out a ruler to determine if it's really a step/reach or not.  

 

 

[scrounge]

In this case, I think you're getting pretty granular regarding him being more than a reach away.  I don't think we should get to the point where we're getting out a ruler to determine if it's really a step/reach or not.  

 

 

​Actually, that's kind of my point....both calls are quite legitimate and supportable, this really is that close. Whatever the on-field judgment and feel was, that's the right call in this case.

[johnnyg08]

I guess I disagree.  This is pretty clear on Interference.  Obstruction would be a far tougher sell.  Could it be done...I suppose since it's technically judgment, but I think it's far from a 50/50 call. 

[UmpJeff]

Ball is farther away than a step and a reach. F3 is no longer in the act of fielding the ball when contact is made. RLI doesn't apply (contrary to what MKE's idiot commentary guy thinks). Please explain.

​What video were you watching, Matt?  That ball was no more than 18" from his right foot.  Please give us your definition of "step and a reach"...

I've got INT all day.  RLI does not apply in this situation.

[noumpere]

​What video were you watching, Matt?  That ball was no more than 18" from his right foot.  Please give us your definition of "step and a reach"...

I've got INT all day.  RLI does not apply in this situation.

​And, when the contact occurs, F3 is clearly reaching for ("fielding") the ball.  Even if the ball did get at one point farther away, F3 is again protected by the time this play blows up.  (See the NCAA? play where the pitcher kicks the ball toward the line and contact is made as F1 is reaching for the ball)