Anyone Have Obstruction Here? Part II

[CricketChapman]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v899004383/?query=interference

 

Tough sell here if this game is more competitive at the time of the play.  Is BR truly hindered by F1?  Vic is one of my favorites, but I'm not sure this is obstruction.

And of course, the brilliant minds at MLBAM mislabel this "Interference."

[noumpere]

I agree it's a close call.  Was the runner slowing down because he was OBS, or because he was about to be tagged out in an 8-0 game?

[Stk004]

Was he going to be tagged out? Yes. Did F1 hinder the BR while F3 was protected? Yes. I have OBS. 

[maven]

About the only correct comment made by the taters was: "that's ticky tack."

Probably supportable by rule, but the judgment of hindrance was dubious.

[Gfoley4]

you know it's bad when MLB.com can't even understand the difference between interference and obstruction

[maven]

29 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

you know it's bad when MLB.com can't even understand the difference between interference and obstruction

Web lackeys don't understand a lot of things about a lot of things, partly as a result of being 20 years old.

[MObetterBlue]

I understood everything when I was 20 years old... 

[Lindsay]

Correct interpretation by Vic that only one fielder is protected. As for the obstruction charge, if F3 goes to touch the base, there's a chance the play is no-called. Because F3 goes to tag B1, B1 is put in jeopardy of trying to avoid the tag by the non-protected F1's actions. It's a rules book defensible call.

And, in true broadcasting form, we have professional "analysis" that the runner was "out of the baseline."

If there was an ejection, I'd have this as QOC Correct.

[Man_In_Black]

3 hours ago, MObetterBlue said:

I understood everything when I was 20 years old... 

That's nothing. I knew everything when I was only 16. My dad would often tell me so himself. We'd be arguing about something and he'd say, "Oh yeah, I forgot...you're 16. You know everything!"

Anyway, getting back on topic...

I can see an argument for ruling obstruction, but I'm not sure if I would have called it myself in that situation. As mentioned above, the rules do support the call so I'm not going to condemn it. But I likely wouldn't have had a problem with a simple "out" call, either.

[BRUMP]

23 hours ago, maven said:

Web lackeys don't understand a lot of things about a lot of things, partly as a result of being 20 years old.

ouch