Browsing YouTube

[umpire20]

Explanation for call on this play?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEUUQW3f7z4

Thanks.

[basejester]

I believe the umpire judged the first baseman was the protected fielder, which makes the makes the pitcher's action obstruction.  (The other way around would work out the same, too:  if the umpire judges the pitcher is the one fielding the ball, when the first baseman forces the runner to deviate around him, that would be obstruction.)  Both fielders cannot legally block the runner's path while fielding a batted a ball.

6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions
(a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

. . .

(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a bat-

ted 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. The umpire shall call the runner out in accor-
dance with Rule 5.09(b)(3) (former Rule 7.08(b)). If the
batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder
attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base
runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the
batter-runner shall be awarded first base;

Professional Baseball Umpire Corp Umpire Manual, 7.1 Offensive Interference

. . .

Under the Official Baseball Rules, if a runner or batter-runner comes in contact with one or more fielders while they are attempting to field a batted ball, 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 batted ball.  See OBR 7.09 (j) / 6.01.

[umpire20]

@basejester Thanks!

[maven]

The video posts an irrelevant rule (running lane INT). There was no throw to 1B, so there could not possibly have been RLI.

The ruling was OBS. Melvin protested, and IIRC the A's went on to win the game, so the protest was vacated without comment. The ruling would have been upheld.

[Senor Azul]

The game was played on August 28, 2014, and the Oakland A's lost the game to the Los Angeles Angels in 10 innings. On the play in question, the pitcher was originally charged with the obstruction which is scored as an error in the scorebook. The next day the ruling was changed and the obstruction and the error was charged to the first baseman Brandon Moss. The protest was disallowed.

[Lindsay]

Here is the play and its analysis from Brent Rice of the Wendelstedt School:  Solution for Case Play 2014-4: Batter-Runner Obstruction