Very weird type 1 obstruction play, Brewers manager ejected

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, HuskerUmp22 said:

Is anybody questioning whether it was obstruction or not? Obviously I know the umpires called obstruction after they got together, but what did F3 do to warrant the obstruction? He was in the act of fielding the ball.

In non-FED game, I would have this as a train wreck and "play on"  The collision happened as F3 was coming down after his jump to field the ball -- and theer was no further hindrance of the runner.

[basejester]

1 hour ago, maven said:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The umpire must determine what bases the runners would reach without the OBS. That's the only relevant sense of "would": modal auxiliary verbs don't require a lot of interpretation on their own, at least not by native speakers of the language.

You disagree with the umpire's award in this case. Fine. Next question.

I disagree with the standard you are using.  I have literally never heard anyone else imply that the offense should get the benefit of the doubt on the obstruction award.  Nothing about the language in the rule (or interpretations that I know of) suggests that we should award only the bases the runner certainly would have reached.  We're just supposed to take our best guess on how to undo the effect of the obstruction.

I appreciate GIl's comment that we shouldn't know what transpired on the field after the failing to time appropriately.  Nevertheless, it is readily apparent that the runner would have scored.  Look at the video about 3:53.  The runner is 2/3 of the way to third base before the F3 even starts chasing the ball.  We all see that he scored fairly easily.  

Sometimes we have to make an unpopular, counter-intuitive, and seemingly unfair ruling based on the hard letter of the law.  This is not that time.  The rule gives us all the latitude in the world to get it right.  We don't have, in my humble opinion, an ethical obligation to make a wrong-end-of-the-stick ruling based on the rules of evidence.  (E.g., "We know we would have F*#Ked up this call if we had called time out properly.  Therefore, we're obligated to F*#K it up now."  Really?)

 

[basejester]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

In non-FED game, I would have this as a train wreck and "play on"  The collision happened as F3 was coming down after his jump to field the ball -- and theer was no further hindrance of the runner.

 

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball
and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

[Stk004]

2 hours ago, basejester said:

 

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball
and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

While I suppose I could've looked this up myself, I've been waiting for this post the whole thread. Thanks 

[Lindsay]

3 hours ago, basejester said:

Sometimes we have to make an unpopular, counter-intuitive, and seemingly unfair ruling based on the hard letter of the law.  This is not that time.  The rule gives us all the latitude in the world to get it right.  We don't have, in my humble opinion, an ethical obligation to make a wrong-end-of-the-stick ruling based on the rules of evidence.  (E.g., "We know we would have F*#Ked up this call if we had called time out properly.  Therefore, we're obligated to F*#K it up now."  Really?)

 

Scenario: Obstruction on BR before he reaches first base, umpires keep play alive (like Carlson/Gorman did) and the bases are run as they were in this game, and after the play the umpires award R1 home plate based on the fact that he scored "fairly easily" after F3 was late to the ball. B1 is put at first base. (Or, alternately, R1 is given 3rd and B1 is given 2nd).

Defensive team coach: My right fielder knows the rules of baseball, knows the play was Obstruction A—hell, he saw U1 identify it—and knew that, by rule, play is immediately dead. That's why he stopped running in. If there was no obstruction, he would have charged the ball faster and thrown R1 out at the plate (seriously, why do you think he was hugging the foul line to begin with?). Perhaps due to how fast he would have gotten the ball, R1 wouldn't have even tried to score and B1 wouldn't have gone to second.

If the defense filed a protest based on improper application of the rules, they would have had a good case. Yes, umpire's judgment, but the rules do not allow for keeping a play alive and applying judgment ex-post facto wherein the rules are quite clear that play is to be killed immediately. If the umpire has the foresight to have R1 scoring all the way from his position at second at the moment of obstruction, then all the power to him, that's a mechanically proper judgment call. But it is improper to score R1 based on action that occurs after the ball is to have become dead (other than, of course, a wild throw going out of play).

That's why we have to abide by the rules, mechanics, and procedure as prescribed by the book.

[basejester]

46 minutes ago, Gil said:

Scenario: Obstruction on BR before he reaches first base, umpires keep play alive (like Carlson/Gorman did) and the bases are run as they were in this game, and after the play the umpires award R1 home plate based on the fact that he scored "fairly easily" after F3 was late to the ball. B1 is put at first base. (Or, alternately, R1 is given 3rd and B1 is given 2nd).

Defensive team coach: My right fielder knows the rules of baseball, knows the play was Obstruction A—hell, he saw U1 identify it—and knew that, by rule, play is immediately dead. That's why he stopped running in. If there was no obstruction, he would have charged the ball faster and thrown R1 out at the plate (seriously, why do you think he was hugging the foul line to begin with?). Perhaps due to how fast he would have gotten the ball, R1 wouldn't have even tried to score and B1 wouldn't have gone to second.

If the defense filed a protest based on improper application of the rules, they would have had a good case. Yes, umpire's judgment, but the rules do not allow for keeping a play alive and applying judgment ex-post facto wherein the rules are quite clear that play is to be killed immediately. If the umpire has the foresight to have R1 scoring all the way from his position at second at the moment of obstruction, then all the power to him, that's a mechanically proper judgment call. But it is improper to score R1 based on action that occurs after the ball is to have become dead (other than, of course, a wild throw going out of play).

None of this business with the right fielder happened.  But hypothetically, yes, I agree - if a player stops because the know the play should be dead, the resulting action would produce no useful information.

46 minutes ago, Gil said:

That's why we have to abide by the rules, mechanics, and procedure as prescribed by the book.

The lesson to umpires is make sure to call time on this play.  Letting this play out and then judging that it wouldn't have happened the way it did, is selecting the maximum SH*#storm.  We might get some grief for placing the runners anyway, but this is worse.

 

[johnpatrick]

4 hours ago, basejester said:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball
and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

I have a problem interpreting this rule, and would appreciate input. 

1. Does the fact that he missed the ball automatically change it from a train wreck to obstruction?
2. If he had caught the ball, I assume that this would have just been a train wreck, correct?
3. What if he catches it and the collision causes him to drop the ball.  What is it then?

You frequently see this on a pick-off at 1B.  Ball overthrown, F3 falls on top of R1.  I've generally ruled that if he immediately gets up to chase the ball, it's nothing.  If he doesn't make an immediate effort to get off the runner, obstruction.  So if #1 above is true, this play would always be type 2 (B) obstruction.  Help me understand.
 

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

I have a problem interpreting this rule, and would appreciate input. 

1. Does the fact that he missed the ball automatically change it from a train wreck to obstruction?
2. If he had caught the ball, I assume that this would have just been a train wreck, correct?
3. What if he catches it and the collision causes him to drop the ball.  What is it then?

You frequently see this on a pick-off at 1B.  Ball overthrown, F3 falls on top of R1.  I've generally ruled that if he immediately gets up to chase the ball, it's nothing.  If he doesn't make an immediate effort to get off the runner, obstruction.  So if #1 above is true, this play would always be type 2 (B) obstruction.  Help me understand.
 

1. Yes

2. Yes, and he probably applies a tag. 

3. Nothing 

[dumbdumb]

In the 2nd video, towards the end Pat Murphy is asking "there's no way we score a run" to Gorman and then again to Carlson and Fagan. And then he asks again at the end if "that's what it is before first (obstruction before 1sth base).

It is unfortunate for better or worse that anything after the point of time out cannot come into play. However, in many parks it would strictly be how lucky you are on the overthrow carom off the wall. In many parks, the ball might have bounced back right to the first baseman, if the original batted ball was fielded and thrown by the shortstop going to his left, or if the right fielder was playing in on a singles hitter and the ball one hopped right to him off the wall. You do not get to play the luck of the bounce off the wall to determine base awards.

In many parks the ball could lodge in the tarps and it is just 2 from the overthrow, even though the obstruction prior to first stops play immediately, which would have cut off the run anyway in the OP. In certain dream situations, like an attempted play prior to the overthrow and BR obstruction prior to first, the runner may get 2 bases and score based on time of throw. The only reason for the argument of a run scoring on the OP, is the advantageous ricochet off the wall to start with, and a situation where the right fielder either forgot to back up the play or positions deep and off the line, rather than in other instances when he remembers to back up, or starts the play in shallow RF and guarding the line.

Usually the rules are written to make sure the team committing a violation is not rewarded for the violation. However, that rule of thumb just cannot be adhered to in all situations with all rules based on the way they are currently written. In some cases it might be argued that the offense/defense committing the violation gets an advantage (penalty not severe enough) not intended by the rule or the rule makes it a 50/50 split rather than totally penalizing the violator only.

 

Seems like years ago with good ole Whitey Herzog in STL, there was some type of spectator interference with the ball going into the right field corner. Now good ole Whitey was blessed with some road runners over the years and one of those speedsters hit that ball in the corner. Whitey argued till the cows came home about the fact that he had a Bob Hayes/Usain Bolt road runner clone, and nobody on the man upstair's green earth, could thrown him out on a ball hit like that in the corner. Well, the umpires stuck to giving the BR 2nd base rather than third on the spectator interference, just like if the ball had bounced over the fence in the corner. However, a ball bouncing over takes judgment out of the base awards, and it is just the luck of the bounce saving the defensive team from the offense getting a possible triple on the play. Of course on SI, the umpires can award bases using their own 'judgment', as to which base/bases the runner/runners would have advanced, to nullify fan Spectator Interference, rather than being hamstrung with a two base award only. SI does cause judgment of awards and therefor allows more leeway for a more advantageous or less advantageous awarding of bases, rather than a fixed/specific amount of award.

 

[johnpatrick]

7 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

It is unfortunate for better or worse that anything after the point of time out cannot come into play.

I'm not sure if I agree with that.  I think the rule is written to place the runners where they would have reached had there been no obstruction (I too am giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense). 

You do it by rule in a Type 1 obstruction in a run down if the ball is in the air when the obstruction occurs and then goes out of play. 

How about this play:  You're on a field with a deep backstop and you have Type 1 obstruction on a play at the plate with a runner a few steps from 2B and the ball is overthrown.  Ball's dead on the play at the plate.  What do you do with the runner a couple of steps from 2B when:

1. F1 is backing up the play and cleanly fields the ball?
2. Nobody is backing up the play and the ball goes all the way to the backstop?

In #1 I'm leaving the runner at 2B because that's where he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred.  In #2 I'm sending him to 3B, you guessed it, because that's where he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred.

[noumpere]

22 hours ago, basejester said:

 

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball
and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

Yes, that's the rule.  Now, how to apply it to a thrown ball.

 

From J/R:

A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to

field" a batted ball (see Chapter 13, Section II, "trying to field," p. 56),

excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession

of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or

deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown all need

not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder

runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction.

 

 

 

[basejester]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Yes, that's the rule.  Now, how to apply it to a thrown ball.

 

From J/R:

A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to

field" a batted ball (see Chapter 13, Section II, "trying to field," p. 56),

excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession

of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or

deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown all need

not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder

runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction.

 

 

 

I don't think J/R is an authority, but no need to rehash that argument.  Based on the J/R interpretation, do you think the obstruction call in the world series is incorrect?

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, basejester said:

I don't think J/R is an authority, but no need to rehash that argument.  Based on the J/R interpretation, do you think the obstruction call in the world series is incorrect?

I think both calls were correct  I think the WS call was correct and I view the plays as different.  In one (the OP), the collision is part of the actual act of trying to field the throw.  In the other (WS), the OBS is *after* the attempt to field, and after the runner gets up form the slide and is making a *separate* move to advance.

[basejester]

9 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I think both calls were correct and I view the plays as different.  In one (the OP), the collision is part of the actual act of trying to field the throw.  In the other (WS), the OBS is *after* the attempt to field, and after the runner gets up form the slide and is making a *separate* move to advance.

That sounds like an argument that the OP should not be obstruction.  I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, basejester said:

That sounds like an argument that the OP should not be obstruction.  I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

Edited.  I forgot how the OP was called when I was writing.  IMO, the OP was incorrectly called OBS (should have been "nothing") and the WS call was correctly called OBS.

[JaxRolo]

On 9/4/2016 at 4:31 PM, johnpatrick said:

I would have had a train wreck in this situation.  Am I the only one?

If there was ever a case for mute, this was it.  He even READ the rule and glanced over the part where the ball is dead.

No. It was obvious OBS. I'm just not sure about the runner placement.

[lawump]

Having gone to the Brinkman-Froemming Umpire School in 1997...which used the J/R Manual as its one and only textbook...I would not have called OBS on the play in the OP if it had occurred during my pro career in the late 1990's based upon the J/R language quoted above in this thread.

With that said, J/R has been out of print now for several years.  Interpretations have changed since J/R's last edition.  I'm at my office and do not have my official umpire manuals.  I will look tonight and post what I find.

[johnpatrick]

FWIW, my MiLB buddy's take on this.  It generated significant discussion with his MiLB peers:

"Immediately after the ball passes the fielder he is no longer protected and then protection switches completely to the runner.  Always obstruction if f3 misses the ball. Always.

Yes you 100% have to take into consideration what happens to the ball after time is called because you're ultimately trying to place all runners where they would have been if the obstruction had not occurred. So by trying to imagine something that didn't happen, we are trying to play God and we will never be able to know exactly what happens if it had played out. Because of this we have to take into consideration everything surrounding the play including, where the ball ends up, where the fielders are, who is on base and how fast, the score for where they would have most likely thrown the ball which affects how and where the runners go. "

 

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, johnpatrick said:

"Immediately after the ball passes the fielder he is no longer protected and then protection switches completely to the runner.  Always obstruction if f3 misses the ball. Always.

Looks like the old interp, "Must disappear after missing a batted ball, need not disappear after missing a thrown ball" is going the way of J/R generally.

Frankly, I like the new interp: if the defense misplays so badly that the throw (a) takes the fielder into the runners path, but (b) he still can't field it, that should be OBS.

[noumpere]

15 hours ago, maven said:

Frankly, I like the new interp: if the defense misplays so badly that the throw (a) takes the fielder into the runners path, but (b) he still can't field it, that should be OBS.

I was wondering a similar thing when discussing this with a MiLB umpire last night (and, BTW, he had it as "play on.")

I did not go back and watch the play, but maybe the throw was *so bad* that F3 could never really be "in the act of fielding" the throw, but instead was "chasing a loose ball."  Similar in concept to the "step and a reach" when a fielder misplays a batted ball.

Or maybe they just kicked it.  Or maybe the interp has changed.  Or they were "trying to be fair to both sides".  Or, s*** happens.

[maven]

50 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Or maybe they just kicked it.  Or maybe the interp has changed.  Or they were "trying to be fair to both sides".  Or, s*** happens.

True: small sample size to generalize.

[JaxRolo]

Looks like the old interp, "Must disappear after missing a batted ball, need not disappear after missing a thrown ball" is going the way of J/R generally.

Frankly, I like the new interp: if the defense misplays so badly that the throw (a) takes the fielder into the runners path, but (b) he still can't field it, that should be OBS.

Exactly. Brent Rice told me once that 98% of umpires are afraid to call OBS .