Obstruction Illinois - Illinois State

[Gfoley4]

 

If I can find another video later, will also link.

 

[zoops]

Can't say for sure if I totally disagree, but it appears that the ball gets to the catcher when the runner is still about 10' up the line from him.  This note comes to mind:

Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be subject to being ejected.

[Stk004]

It appears the runner begins to deviate from his path before the catcher receives the ball. It also appears the catcher initially positioned himself on the foul line, rather than moving there to receive the throw. 

[Replacematt]

Of course, the game ended up going 13.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Stk004 said:

It appears the runner begins to deviate from his path before the catcher receives the ball. It also appears the catcher initially positioned himself on the foul line, rather than moving there to receive the throw. 

This

[zoops]

I see what you guys are saying, but freeze that thing at :05, the runner is still running on the line (hasn't deviated from his path) and the catcher either has caught or is just receiving the ball (can't quite tell) and there's a good 6-8 feet between them.  I'm not even sure that the catcher cut off access to the plate at any time - his right foot is in fair territory and it looks like his left foot is probably about on the line or maybe a bit into foul territory.  I'm having a hard time going OBS here. 

[Tborze]

100% NOT Interference!  

[maven]

Not enough coverage of the action around HP to evaluate PU's judgment call.

It's impossible to assess a call like OBS based on a still shot. It's quite inadvisable to do so in slow motion: slo mo makes everything look illegal.

[Richvee]

On 4/10/2019 at 3:20 PM, zoops said:

Can't say for sure if I totally disagree, but it appears that the ball gets to the catcher when the runner is still about 10' up the line from him.  This note comes to mind:

Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be subject to being ejected.

And from what I can gather, this note is a bit ambiguous as this play demonstrates  

IMO, F2 “Hinders  or impedes” the runner ‘s  progress when the runner veers right before F2 has the ball. That said, the runner sure does start veering awfully early in his run home, and therefore as far as I can tell, I think “ , the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.” 

 

[Mister B]

31 minutes ago, Richvee said:

That said, the runner sure does start veering awfully early in his run home, and therefore as far as I can tell, I think “ , the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.” 

Baseball equivalent of the flop. 

I agree it's a difficult angle to make a final decision. But I do think the catcher had the ball as the runner began his exaggerated avoidance. 

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, Mister B said:

exaggerated avoidance.

perfect description. 

[Haid D' Salaami]

am I the only one who thinks this is not Obstruction... think about it like this play happened between 1st and 2nd.... would you call OBS then?

[zoops]

On 4/22/2019 at 9:00 PM, Haid D' Salaami said:

am I the only one who thinks this is not Obstruction... think about it like this play happened between 1st and 2nd.... would you call OBS then?

Appears most of the posts agree with you or are leaning "not good enough evidence" so I don't think you are the only one