Obstruction - place the runner

[grayhawk]

Play from last night with Type B obstruction.  Aybar was kept at second base, but I think he should have been awarded third.  He was rounding hard and the throw went home, so I think he ends up at third without the obstruction.  Thoughts?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v279770083

 

[Thunderheads]

Play from last night with Type B obstruction.  Aybar was kept at second base, but I think he should have been awarded third.  He was rounding hard and the throw went home, so I think he ends up at third without the obstruction.  Thoughts?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v279770083

 

Must have ruled that without the OBS he would not have made 3rd ...which, he would not have ....ball was hit too shallow (IMHO)

[noumpere]

I have MC, and no OBS.  Oops -- wrong thread.

 

I agree with you, especially with no cut-off man in the middle.

 

One caveat, perhaps -- if the defense was yelling "three" and then changed it to "home" after the OBS, then I might leave the runner at second.

Edited July 22, 2015 by noumpere

[maven]

 

One caveat, perhaps -- if the defense was yelling "three" and then changed it to "home" after the OBS, then I might leave the runner at second.

Just to anticipate a question about this post: yes, we can take such info into account. You can use anything that happens during play to factor into your award: what the defense does, whether a runner trips and falls on his own prior to the OBS, etc. etc.

The objective of the award is to nullify the act of OBS: with type b, we award bases, if any, to the base the runner would have achieved without the OBS. With that ground ball to CF, the defense might well have played on Aybar at 3B instead of Pujols at the plate, and it's debatable whether Aybar would have reached 3B safely without the OBS.

[grayhawk]

Just to anticipate a question about this post: yes, we can take such info into account. You can use anything that happens during play to factor into your award: what the defense does, whether a runner trips and falls on his own prior to the OBS, etc. etc.

The objective of the award is to nullify the act of OBS: with type b, we award bases, if any, to the base the runner would have achieved without the OBS. With that ground ball to CF, the defense might well have played on Aybar at 3B instead of Pujols at the plate, and it's debatable whether Aybar would have reached 3B safely without the OBS.

They might have, but F8 never even glanced towards third base.  Looked to me like he was going home all the way.  Besides, shouldn't we give ANY benefit of the doubt to the offense here?

[maven]

They might have, but F8 never even glanced towards third base.  Looked to me like he was going home all the way.  Besides, shouldn't we give ANY benefit of the doubt to the offense here?

OK, I yield. The Halos got screwed.

Happy now?

[grayhawk]

OK, I yield. The Halos got screwed.

Happy now?

Aybar ended up scoring anyway.  

 

[Richvee]

They might have, but F8 never even glanced towards third base.  Looked to me like he was going home all the way.  Besides, shouldn't we give ANY benefit of the doubt to the offense here?

I'm not sold on that. F8 fields the throw, sees the OBS and knows then Aybar is not running to third. That's when he releases the throw home. Had Aybar not been obstructed, I think an argument can be made that F8 has him dead to rights at 3rd.

[grayhawk]

I'm not sold on that. F8 fields the throw, sees the OBS and knows then Aybar is not running to third. That's when he releases the throw home. Had Aybar not been obstructed, I think an argument can be made that F8 has him dead to rights at 3rd.

I understand what you are saying, but I honestly don't think F8 was ever thinking about throwing to third.  Why would he when the play at home ended up being close?  I think he throws home whether the obstruction happened or not.  And again, shouldn't we give ANY benefit of the doubt to the offense here?

[maven]

Doesn't matter what F8 was thinking. It matters only what U2 was thinking.

[Richvee]

I have no problem with the call, and I'd have no problem if he was awarded 3rd. The ultimate example of a judgement call. Maybe not even judgement, closer to an opinion.

[DVA7130]

I don't think he had a chance a third, but honestly what would make me keep him at second more than anything would be the runner hugging the fielder trying to make the biggest show of it possible. Not much of an attempt at third at that point. God rule, so no one can fault the umpire in any light.

[jpperez14]

Well, obstruction is a judgement call, correct? I think had obstruction not occured, there could have been a possible play at 3rd. F8 appears to me that he was coming home with the throw anyways. I guess it would also differ, say if F2 knew he wouldn't get R2 out at home so instead of trying to tag, he catches and fires to 3rd? 

[MadMax]

Aybar didn't help matters by retreating to 2B on his own volition. With U2 indicating Obstruction, and the throw sailing past him, Aybar could have proceeded on to 3B, where a play may or may not have even taken place (nobody knew if there was going to be a play at the plate, or if the ball might have gotten away from F2, etc.). It looks like U2 gave up on the Obstruction in much the same way Aybar gave up on pressing the advantage.

If he had gone on towards 3B, then my estimate is U2 would have held to his judgement of Obstruction and awarded 3B to Aybar, regardless of the ruling (Safe/Out) of a play upon him there.

[ricka56]

I'm not sold on that. F8 fields the throw, sees the OBS and knows then Aybar is not running to third. That's when he releases the throw home. Had Aybar not been obstructed, I think an argument can be made that F8 has him dead to rights at 3rd.

This and I think Aybar was trying to draw an obstruction call. The ball was right in front of him. He wouldn't have tried for 3B. But why not try to draw a cheap base. Good no base award.

[noumpere]

This and I think Aybar was trying to draw an obstruction call. The ball was right in front of him. He wouldn't have tried for 3B. But why not try to draw a cheap base. Good no base award.

I'm not sure that's applicable here.  If you think the runner's actions were (only) to draw a call, then make no call.  The defense didn't hinder him in his attempt to advance.

 

Given that there was a call, ....

 

I would like to hear U2's explanation and whether he's changed his mind (it happens) or whether MLB thinks it was the right/wrong call.

[Mizzou2016]

I understand what you are saying, but I honestly don't think F8 was ever thinking about throwing to third.  Why would he when the play at home ended up being close?  I think he throws home whether the obstruction happened or not.  And again, shouldn't we give ANY benefit of the doubt to the offense here?

OBR interp for awards on OBS is that you must be 100% certain that the runner would have made 3rd on his own without the OBS before awarding the base.

Don't have it with me to quote it, but I just read it in Carl's BRD yesterday.

____
It's BRD play 39-35: Authority is umpire Jeff Nelson and supervisor Steve Palermo.

The philosophy of MLB is: The umpire must be certain that the runner would have achieved his advance base or he will protect him only to his retreat base.

Edited July 23, 2015 by StevenCraze
Add BRD reference

[johnnyg08]

I was hoping you or someone would post this play.  Thanks!  Great one for Type B rule analysis.