Anyone have obstruction here?

[heyoh]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v893676883/?query=oddities

 

Looks like it could be called on the pitcher.  Not much chance of him being safe, but if they called it in the below play, can't it be called here?

 

[noumpere]

It looks to me like the runner was out before he was obstructed.  F2 had the ball before R3 slowed down to avoid the contact.

[maven]

As for the second play: notice how far the 1B play occurs from 1B. To record an out, the fielder will have to tag the runner, as he won't beat him to the base. In that case, when the runner slowed, it constituted hindrance and conferred a substantial advantage on the defense.

In the play at the plate, the alleged hindrance occurred at the base, as the runners was being put out. Sloppy play, no doubt, and surely the risk of OBS went up: if F2 doesn't pick up the ball on the first try, that would definitely be the call. As it was, the defense got no advantage, so good no-call.

As ever, we have to remember that merely being in the runner's path is nothing unless it also hinders his attempt to advance or retreat legally. Once R3 is out, any subsequent hindrance is no violation.

[kstrunk]

I am lost on the 2nd play and simply cannot see how they get obstruction. Both fielders are in the grass in fair territory, making a play on the ball. I realize only one of them is protected. The BR runs directly into the play, rendering the runner's lane and all of foul territory vacant (plenty of room to avoid the fielders and the play).

I'm not wise enough in the rules to say they got it wrong, but I don't understand, and I want to. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, kstrunk said:

I am lost on the 2nd play and simply cannot see how they get obstruction. Both fielders are in the grass in fair territory, making a play on the ball. I realize only one of them is protected. The BR runs directly into the play, rendering the runner's lane and all of foul territory vacant (plenty of room to avoid the fielders and the play).

I'm not wise enough in the rules to say they got it wrong, but I don't understand, and I want to. 

1) The BR is entitled to run where he wants (unless you think he's intentionally trying to draw an OBS call).

2) You can change the play just a fraction and have F1 continue to run to foul territory.  Now if BR goes foul and is obstructed you'd be making the argument "BR had all of fair territory to run ...."

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, kstrunk said:

I realize only one of them is protected.

If you really realize this, then you've got it.

The runner may take whatever path he wishes to the base. The fielders MUST stay out of his way, on pain of being liable for an OBS call.

ONE fielder is protected from this obligation, namely the one fielding the batted ball, and only for the time of his fielding (including his throw).

In the video, two are hindering the runner, so at least one of them is guilty of OBS.

[Senor Azul]

The play between the Angels and A’s was discussed in a thread started 12/5/15. It appears in the Professional forum and is titled Browsing YouTube (currently found on page 3 of that forum). The play also received attention from the guys at Close Call Sports/Umpire Ejection Fantasy League. Their analysis is labeled Case Play 2014-4.

[Lindsay]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

The play also received attention from the guys at Close Call Sports/Umpire Ejection Fantasy League. Their analysis is labeled Case Play 2014-4.

 

 Solution for Case Play 2014-4: Batter-Runner Obstruction 

[Thunderheads]

O_l_d

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[heyoh]

Just pointing out, this thread was started to discuss the first play from this week.  The second, older play is included just for comparison's sake, I'm not looking to rehash the second play...

[Replacematt]

11 hours ago, noumpere said:

It looks to me like the runner was out before he was obstructed.  F2 had the ball before R3 slowed down to avoid the contact.

That's what I saw...or if it wasn't before, it was close enough where the hindrance didn't materially affect the outcome.