Do You Have The Same?

[S0M0TEITBE]

I am not 100% sure after watching this several times. I know these guys are the best of the best but while watching random YouTube videos today I thought this would make for a unique discussion. I apologize if this has been brought up before but a few questions... 

1. Was this obstruction? 

2. Should the out at 2nd stand since he advanced at his own peril? 

3. Should the run have scored? 

Extra Credit: What would be your ruling in OBR & Fed? 

And admittedly I'm still not sure and most umpires enjoy these kind of what if's so can't wait to hear the discussion. 

Happy Sunday!!

 

[scrounge]

I don't know OBR obstruction rules very well at all, but it seems to me a very clear and easy ruling in FED of obstruction. I had him only protected to 1B given how short of a distance the ball went from F3, so the out at 2nd stands. But the run scores in either that case or if you protected him to 2B.

[Stk004]

There is in fact a discussion on this, first posted by @Gil

To quickly answer your questions, 

1. Yes

2. No because they should have killed it when the obstruction happened because it happened before 1B. 

3. No because they placed runners where they would've advanced had the obstruction not occurred. 

EC: OBR, see above. FED, there's no type 1/A obstruction, so I would let it play out. Once everything settled down, I'd probably stay with the out at second and the run scoring. 

[S0M0TEITBE]

Ok I'll kill the discussion then since there already is one and go look for it. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking the B/R should have been out at 2B and the run should have scored. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, S0M0TEITBE said:

Ok I'll kill the discussion then since there already is one and go look for it. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking the B/R should have been out at 2B and the run should have scored. 

Only in FED is the play allowed to continue and the correct ruling is the run scores, BR out at 2nd.

. OBR rules clearly state when OBS occurs before 1B on a ground ball to the infield the play is dead at the time of the obstruction

(1) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the
batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base,
the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability
to be put out, to the bases they would have reached,
in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction.

 

[MidAmUmp]

For those of you who think this is obstruction, why do you have obstruction?

[Stk004]

Just now, MidAmUmp said:

For those of you who think this is obstruction, why do you have obstruction?

The first basemen is entitled to move to receive the thrown ball. However, once the ball passes him, he has had his chance to receive the throw and is no longer protected from OBS.

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

For those of you who think this is obstruction, why do you have obstruction?

F3 has made the attempt to field the ball prior to the contact. Once the fielder has made an attempt to field the ball and misses, he can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball and is liable for obstruction. 

[S0M0TEITBE]

10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

OBR rules clearly state when OBS occurs before 1B on a ground ball to the infield the play is dead at the time of the obstruction

AHHH HAAA I guess I was in the Fed mindset since that is mostly what I do...but this is the part I missed. 

12 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

For those of you who think this is obstruction, why do you have obstruction?

This is one of the reasons I posted this to start with. It looked to me as if the throw was high and down the 1st base line toward home and that's what initiated the contact. So I was questioning whether this was obstruction to start with.

[Richvee]

9 minutes ago, S0M0TEITBE said:

 

This is one of the reasons I posted this to start with. It looked to me as if the throw was high and down the 1st base line toward home and that's what initiated the contact. So I was questioning whether this was obstruction to start with.

See above....At least that's what @Stk004 and I believe.

[S0M0TEITBE]

I suppose it's calls like these that keeps the "human element" in the game that we so often hear about. 

[ElkOil]

53 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

The first basemen is entitled to move to receive the thrown ball. However, once the ball passes him, he has had his chance to receive the throw and is no longer protected from OBS.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your rationale. A fielder in the act of trying to catch a thrown ball is not protected from obstruction. A fielder has the absolute right to field a batted ball unhindered, but the same is not true of a thrown ball (FED 8-4-2g). When fielding a batted ball, a fielder is protected so long as the ball is within a "step and a reach" of their position. Once the ball gets beyond that, he's no longer protected, which is what I believe you're referencing.  

The runner has the right to his path to the base unless a fielder is fielding a batted ball. When a fielder hinders a runner, as in the case of this video, it's obstruction. 

So I agree with awarding the BR 1B upon the conclusion of the play, and letting the run and the out at 2B stand.

[Stk004]

Just now, ElkOil said:

I agree with your conclusion, but not your rationale. A fielder in the act of trying to catch a thrown ball is not protected from obstruction. A fielder has the absolute right to field a batted ball unhindered, but the same is not true of a thrown ball (FED 8-4-2g). When fielding a batted ball, a fielder is protected so long as the ball is within a "step and a reach" of their position. Once the ball gets beyond that, he's no longer protected, which is what I believe you're referencing.  

The runner has the right to his path to the base unless a fielder is fielding a batted ball. When a fielder hinders a runner, as in the case of this video, it's obstruction. 

So I agree with awarding the BR 1B upon the conclusion of the play, and letting the run and the out at 2B stand.

OBR 6.01(h) Comment (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.

[MidAmUmp]

I'll start by saying I believe this play occurred before replay at the MLB level. I could be wrong, but I think that's correct. We have the opportunity to watch this play several times from different angles and in slow motion...they did not.

That said, just last week this video was discussed by several umpires who work in one of the BCS conferences. The consensus among them and their supervisor is this is not obstruction...and I agree with them.

The collision occurs as the 1st baseman is still in the act of fielding. He jumped up to catch the throw and when the B/R collides with him, he's still airborne.

This is just a train wreck.

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, MidAmUmp said:

I'll start by saying I believe this play occurred before replay at the MLB level. I could be wrong, but I think that's correct. We have the opportunity to watch this play several times from different angles and in slow motion...they did not.

That said, just last week this video was discussed by several umpires who work in one of the BCS conferences. The consensus among them and their supervisor is this is not obstruction...and I agree with them.

The collision occurs as the 1st baseman is still in the act of fielding. He jumped up to catch the throw and when the B/R collides with him, he's still airborne.

This is just a train wreck.

So where do you place the difference between this play and a play where the first baseman dives for a batted ball, misses, and lies on the ground causing the runner to trip over him just seconds after? We'll assume the ball is not within a step and a reach in this hypothetical scenario. 

[MidAmUmp]

3 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

So where do you place the difference between this play and a play where the first baseman dives for a batted ball, misses, and lies on the ground causing the runner to trip over him just seconds after? We'll assume the ball is not within a step and a reach in this hypothetical scenario. 

You're comparing apples and oranges. A diving fielder cannot be in the act of fielding if he continues to lay on the ground after the batted ball passes him. 

This was a thrown ball which the fielder had to jump to attempt to catch. The collision occurs before he lands, thereby making him still being in the act of catching. He can't disappear when he's still in the air. If the collision occurred after he landed, then it could be considered obstruction.

[Richvee]

8 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

I'll start by saying I believe this play occurred before replay at the MLB level. I could be wrong, but I think that's correct. We have the opportunity to watch this play several times from different angles and in slow motion...they did not.

That said, just last week this video was discussed by several umpires who work in one of the BCS conferences. The consensus among them and their supervisor is this is not obstruction...and I agree with them.

The collision occurs as the 1st baseman is still in the act of fielding. He jumped up to catch the throw and when the B/R collides with him, he's still airborne.

This is just a train wreck.

I can see that. However, it does beg the question, "When is he "done" attempting to field the ball? If he's not "finished" attempting to  fielding the ball until his feet touch the ground, I agree with you.  However, couldn't it be interpreted that F3 has "finished" his attempt to field the ball once the ball passes him? 

Another question..He never had the ball, so this would be OBS in FED?

[MidAmUmp]

5 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I can see that. However, it does beg the question, "When is he "done" attempting to field the ball? If he's not "finished" attempting to  fielding the ball until his feet touch the ground, I agree with you.  However, couldn't it be interpreted that F3 has "finished" his attempt to field the ball once the ball passes him? 

Another question..He never had the ball, so this would be OBS in FED?

I think I answered your question as you were posting this so see above. 

The only thing I'll say in reference to the Fed rule is you guys are getting sucked into calling something because contact occurred. Contact can happen in a baseball game and be ruled "nothing".

Common sense would dictate that a fielder who has to leave the ground to attempt to catch a thrown ball cannot be expected to immediately disappear when he doesn't catch the ball. Unless he's Michael Jordan or David Copperfield, he has to be allowed to return to earth before disappearing.

[Cav]

From the 2017 NFHS case book: 8.3.2 SITUATION K:  F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges towards the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.  RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal.

 

[maven]

7 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

Common sense would dictate that a fielder who has to leave the ground to attempt to catch a thrown ball cannot be expected to immediately disappear when he doesn't catch the ball. Unless he's Michael Jordan or David Copperfield, he has to be allowed to return to earth before disappearing.

As we all know, common sense is a perilous basis for assessing a FED ruling. As Cav has posted, this play has long been ruled OBS by FED: 8.3.2K is exactly this play. Right or wrong (in some ultimate baseball sense), FED wants fielders who block the base without the ball called for OBS.

For other codes: although it might be tempting to get "sucked in" as Jason describes it, I agree that this is a train wreck. We have to distinguish 2 cases:

1. Fielder is fielding a batted ball: a protected fielder has absolute right of way. When he boots the ball (beyond a "step and a reach") and has to go into chase mode, he must "disappear" or be liable for OBS. The strength of the protection warrants a stronger "disappearance" requirement.
2. Fielder is fielding a thrown ball (as in the OP): here we do not have protection, but an exception to the OBS rule. This fielder may move into a runner's path if he must do so to field the throw and not be liable for OBS. This exception extends to his entire act of fielding the throw, including "returning to earth"(!). It does not extend to "chase mode," and once the fielder is done fielding the throw (umpire judgment) he will again be liable for OBS.

The OP falls under (2), so no OBS.

[noumpere]

I agree -- unless the throw was so wild that F3 had no chance at catching it.  In that case he would just be "chasing after a loose ball" and liable for OBS.

 

Its hard to tell from the video which it was.

[MidAmUmp]

1 hour ago, maven said:

As we all know, common sense is a perilous basis for assessing a FED ruling. As Cav has posted, this play has long been ruled OBS by FED: 8.3.2K is exactly this play. Right or wrong (in some ultimate baseball sense), FED wants fielders who block the base without the ball called for OBS.

For other codes: although it might be tempting to get "sucked in" as Jason describes it, I agree that this is a train wreck. We have to distinguish 2 cases:

1. Fielder is fielding a batted ball: a protected fielder has absolute right of way. When he boots the ball (beyond a "step and a reach") and has to go into chase mode, he must "disappear" or be liable for OBS. The strength of the protection warrants a stronger "disappearance" requirement.
2. Fielder is fielding a thrown ball (as in the OP): here we do not have protection, but an exception to the OBS rule. This fielder may move into a runner's path if he must do so to field the throw and not be liable for OBS. This exception extends to his entire act of fielding the throw, including "returning to earth"(!). It does not extend to "chase mode," and once the fielder is done fielding the throw (umpire judgment) he will again be liable for OBS.

The OP falls under (2), so no OBS.

I'm not certain 8.3.2K is the exact play...it states a wide throw and the fielder lunging toward the ball and making contact with B/R. In our video, the 1B has jumped, not lunged, and technically B/R has made contact with 1B before 1B has landed.

I'm sure in NFHS's infinite stupidity and mission to wrap each player in bubble wrap, they would declare this obstruction. 

Personally, I would agree that a fielder lunging after a wide throw and knocking B/R to the ground could be obstruction. I just have a real problem with penalizing 1B when he does not have an opportunity to avoid contact because he's still in the air. 

[Replacematt]

20 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

 I just have a real problem with penalizing 1B when he does not have an opportunity to avoid contact because he's still in the air. 

I don't. Don't want OBS? Catch the ball.

[scrounge]

22 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

 I just have a real problem with penalizing 1B when he does not have an opportunity to avoid contact because he's still in the air. 

I don't a problem with it in the context of the Fed rule, since without the ball he shouldn't even be there in the first place. I get that it makes no sense to expect him to disappear IF he had the original right to be there as he would if there was an 'in the act of fielding' exception. But since there isn't, he can't be there - with or without the jump.

I don't think lunge vs jump has any significance here - it really is as simple as a fielder hindering the advance of the runner without the ball. It seems to me to be a rather easy and obvious obstruction per Fed's rules.  It's not so much punishing the 1B as punishing the 1B's team - primarily the 3B that put him in that position with the bad throw. The defense did that and should pay the appropriate penalty.

[maven]

42 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

I'm not certain 8.3.2K is the exact play...it states a wide throw and the fielder lunging toward the ball and making contact with B/R. In our video, the 1B has jumped, not lunged, and technically B/R has made contact with 1B before 1B has landed.

I'm sure in NFHS's infinite stupidity and mission to wrap each player in bubble wrap, they would declare this obstruction. 

Personally, I would agree that a fielder lunging after a wide throw and knocking B/R to the ground could be obstruction. I just have a real problem with penalizing 1B when he does not have an opportunity to avoid contact because he's still in the air. 

I haven't seen the video. If the BR makes contact with F3 above the base, I've got nothing. The fielder has not in that case denied the runner access to the base, which is the primary criterion for OBS for FED. Denying a runner his preferred access to the base is not to be ruled OBS, by interpretation.