Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

[johnnyg08 1,720]

 

[Matt 1,668]

Obstruction. F4 was no longer fielding the ball.

[Gfoley4 90]

obstruction, although the umpire's "no call" had the same effect 

[kylehutson 655]

Cool. I had that Albany team at regionals 2 weeks ago.

...and I agree it was obstruction, in spite of the baserunning.

[th3 280]

i don't know about that...

 

[Richvee 2,348]

I've got ball, runner, fielder all arriving at the same point at the same time. INT.

[maven 5,042]

The one thing this cannot be is 'nothing'. The only possible bad call in the situation. Given that...and the benefit of any doubt to the defense...

INT. The hindrance happened before the ball went through F4...in fact, before R1 got to F4.

[noumpere 3,363]

I tried to stop the video and it looks to me as if contact (or at least F4 moving to minimize the contact, and not because he "chose to play the ball at a different spot") happens just as the ball is at F4's feet.  I vote for INT.

[Jimurray 910]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I tried to stop the video and it looks to me as if contact (or at least F4 moving to minimize the contact, and not because he "chose to play the ball at a different spot") happens just as the ball is at F4's feet.  I vote for INT.

Unfortunately. the fielder has to be willing to be trucked and get trucked to get the INT call. MLB, quite a few years ago had a pitcher pull up on the 1B line to avoid getting trucked, no INT, and if I recall correctly many agreeing to that call on this website. The fielder, being aware of the possibilty of being trucked, is not "hindered" by that. In this case the fielder got trucked and still no call because the runner about to truck him did not "hinder" him.

[Matt 1,668]

I'm really wondering how anyone sees the ball arriving simultaneously or after the runner. It's quite clear to me that any hindrance occurs when the ball is about six inches behind the fielder's heel.

<shrug>

6 hours ago, maven said:

The one thing this cannot be is 'nothing'. The only possible bad call in the situation. Given that...and the benefit of any doubt to the defense...

INT. The hindrance happened before the ball went through F4...in fact, before R1 got to F4.

I don't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone on something like this. It's this or that, and that's why I'm there.

[maven 5,042]

OK. To some extent, this is "just" a judgment call, and as I've said, the one incorrect call in this nut-cutter is the one made on the field: a no-call.

That said, here's what I see.

The hindrance begins with the ball still in front of F4, as early as this. When the fielder adjusts his route to the ball because of the runner, that's INT.

And here's the instant when the ball arrives (it's not visible in the shot, as it's going through the fielder), and R1 is right on top of him. The contact is imminent, and IMO explains the fielder booting the ball. That's hindrance.

It's true that the contact does not arrive until after the ball goes through. But we all know that contact and hindrance are not the same concept. We can't give the runner a pass on the prior hindrance just because the contact happens after the fielder can possibly be hindered.

I had INT live, I had INT when I reviewed it in slo-mo and frame-by-frame. And although I understand the point that a fielder who boots a ball is no longer protected (from an OBS call), that's not what I see here.

[stkjock 383]

@maven did u intend to embed those images?

Now I see them.  That was odd 

Edited August 11, 2018 by stkjock

[maven 5,042]

1 minute ago, stkjock said:

@maven did u intend to embed those images?

Now I see them.  That was odd 

You caught them as I was editing the post.

[johnnyg08 1,720]

43 minutes ago, maven said:

OK. To some extent, this is "just" a judgment call, and as I've said, the one incorrect call in this nut-cutter is the one made on the field: a no-call.

That said, here's what I see.

The hindrance begins with the ball still in front of F4, as early as this. When the fielder adjusts his route to the ball because of the runner, that's INT.

And here's the instant when the ball arrives (it's not visible in the shot, as it's going through the fielder), and R1 is right on top of him. The contact is imminent, and IMO explains the fielder booting the ball. That's hindrance.

It's true that the contact does not arrive until after the ball goes through. But we all know that contact and hindrance are not the same concept. We can't give the runner a pass on the prior hindrance just because the contact happens after the fielder can possibly be hindered.

I had INT live, I had INT when I reviewed it in slo-mo and frame-by-frame. And although I understand the point that a fielder who boots a ball is no longer protected (from an OBS call), that's not what I see here.

The middle one is the money shot. 

[Matt 1,668]

30 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The middle one is the money shot. 

I don't even have hindrance at that point. I don't see any adjustment by F4 in response to R1 at any point, in fact. I see R1 adjusting his route once he realizes there could be contact (and at the point he does, it is not OBS,) but F4 seems to be entirely oblivious to R1 until contact.

[maven 5,042]

This is a routine ground ball, hit right at a fielder, in a playoff game (presumably a decent youth fielder). I'm including the result of the play as evidence of hindrance.

That evidence is not decisive—he might have booted it with no R1—but it's another piece pointing toward INT, not OBS.

I'd be more confident of INT here if we had a look from the opposite side.

[Tborze 84]

17 hours ago, Matt said:

Obstruction. F4 was no longer fielding the ball.

I'm with you here!  When I first saw it I thought OBS. Maven makes a good point of hindrance before the ball arrives, but the angle we have in the video isn't the best view for that. Maybe U2's angle was better which is why there was no INT call. Well, there was a safe call, which I assume he had nothing on the play. 

IMO the full speed video is the best evidence, at least from this angle. As the ball is arriving, R1 sees F4 coming in and takes a step to his left, after the ball gets by, F4's momentum carries him into R1, which tells me R1 wasn't in front of him at the time he was making a play on the ball. If F4 would have fielded it, there would be no discussion.  

If there was replay, I don't think either call would have been reversed.  

Im more curious as to what U2 said to the coach. That was a quick discussion. 

And how bout the announcer?  The runner has his right to the base! 

[noumpere 3,363]

6 minutes ago, Tborze said:

And how bout the announcer?  The runner has his right to the base! 

SS. DD.

[Matt 1,668]

Just for the record, I'm not looking to convince anyone of my stance nor saying theirs is incorrect. I find it quite interesting that several competent officials can look at the same thing and see different and contradictory elements.

[johnnyg08 1,720]

13 hours ago, Matt said:

I don't even have hindrance at that point. I don't see any adjustment by F4 in response to R1 at any point, in fact. I see R1 adjusting his route once he realizes there could be contact (and at the point he does, it is not OBS,) but F4 seems to be entirely oblivious to R1 until contact.

We disagree. 

[BalkHawk 257]

Did the runner give the fielder every chance to field the ball? (No. The runner stays in the 'baseline' never varying his basepath, even with plenty of opportunity to go around.)

Back when, the rules said the runner had to go so far as to run behind any fielder with a chance at the ball. That rule is changed but the spirit remains: Did the runner deny ANY chance the fielder had to field the ball? Note that it is not necessary for the fielder to contact or be contacted by the runner.

Did the fielder do ANYTHING different than he would have were there no runner from first? Many of you are keen to point out that immediately after the fielder loses his opportunity to field the ball, he becomes liable for obstruction. You should apply the interference rule with the same zeal: until the time when the fielder no longer has any chance at the ball, the batter is liable for any action, including his presence, which hinders a fielder on defense. You don't need a train wreck or the runner blatantly getting hit by a batted ball. 

This is interference. The fielder probably never realized that he has right-of-way, and likely meant to obstruct the runner from 1b in the split-seconds after he flubbed the ball. It doesn't matter since the ball is immediately dead- indeed, before the ball passes the fielder; even possibly before it is entirely past the runner since this is where the fielder is caused to hesitate.

The base umpire saw this differently, but no doubt he was late to the party. On a ground ball up the middle when there is a runner and a fielder headed for the same space, you need to spin around ahead of the ball so you can be stopped, with your eyes set, before this imminent collision.

Then when your partner bangs his belt, it will be because you were in position, not because you were lucky enough to not have a circus.

[noumpere 3,363]

8 hours ago, BalkHawk said:

Did the runner give the fielder every chance to field the ball? (No. The runner stays in the 'baseline' never varying his basepath, even with plenty of opportunity to go around.)

Back when, the rules said the runner had to go so far as to run behind any fielder with a chance at the ball.

I don't think either part of that is the rule.

The rule never said this -- it said (and either the rule or the interps still does) that a runner is allowed to go behind the fielder without being called for "out of the baseline" (which experienced umps recognize is meaningless since the rule only applies when a tag is attempted) or for "out of the running lane" if the play is to first (also nearly meaningless)