Obstruction no-call Rockies-Diamondbacks

[Gfoley4]

https://v.redd.it/5d12pzn9qng51

[stkjock]

I'm so confused by that video, U1 signal safe, he clearly beats the throw, seems to get the side of the base.... WTF happened 

[Gfoley4]

Just now, stkjock said:

I'm so confused by that video, U1 signal safe, he clearly beats the throw, seems to get the side of the base.... WTF happened 

I believe the call on the field was an out (after discussion with the home plate umpire). I would say he got part of the base, but after review I guess they thought he didn't. I don't believe possible obstruction is a factor in review as well

[stkjock]

ahh, I didn't see any out call after a meeting

[ArchAngel72]

Wouldn't this fall into obstruction by the pitcher as he did not have possession of the ball?

 

Or is that only Catchers at home plate?

 

[maven]

I believe that the runner was called out on appeal for a missed base.

It can't be OBS on the fielder: he was in position to receive the throw, and that position confers permission to be in the base path. The contact was properly ruled incidental, whatever else we might say about this call.

Based on the linked video, the appeal should have been denied. The BR seemed to touch 1B, so it wasn't a missed base. Moreover, the touch occurred prior to the tag. This video provides insufficient basis for overturning the call on the field of safe.

I will add that video review has camera angles that TV does not have: it's possible that the reviewer saw indisputable evidence of a missed base. In that case, the overturn would be correct. Obviously, we are unlikely to get that look.

[Gfoley4]

6 minutes ago, maven said:

I believe that the runner was called out on appeal for a missed base.

It can't be OBS on the fielder: he was in position to receive the throw, and that position confers permission to be in the base path. The contact was properly ruled incidental, whatever else we might say about this call.

Based on the linked video, the appeal should have been denied. The BR seemed to touch 1B, so it wasn't a missed base. Moreover, the touch occurred prior to the tag. This video provides insufficient basis for overturning the call on the field of safe.

I will add that video review has camera angles that TV does not have: it's possible that the reviewer saw indisputable evidence of a missed base. In that case, the overturn would be correct. Obviously, we are unlikely to get that look.

under high school rules (or others with no "in the act of fielding" provision), this would be obstruction, correct?

[johnnyg08]

6 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

under high school rules (or others with no "in the act of fielding" provision), this would be obstruction, correct?

It's judgment of course...but yes, my understanding is the federation requires possession of the baseball to legally block the entire base. 

 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

I believe that the run. ner was called out on appeal for a missed base.

It can't be OBS on the fielder: he was in position to receive the throw, and that position confers permission to be in the base path. The contact was properly ruled incidental, whatever else we might say about this call.

Based on the linked video, the appeal should have been denied. The BR seemed to touch 1B, so it wasn't a missed base. Moreover, the touch occurred prior to the tag. This video provides insufficient basis for overturning the call on the field of safe.

I will add that video review has camera angles that TV does not have: it's possible that the reviewer saw indisputable evidence of a missed base. In that case, the overturn would be correct. Obviously, we are unlikely to get that look.

U1, Blazer I think, gave a weak safe call which is not the current MLB mechanic if he thought the runner didn't touch 1B. But after overruning 1B someone from the defense appears to have  tagged the runner before he walked back to 1B and Blazer seems to have called him out. Offense requested replay of the call at 1B and the call stands. I think there was no overturn. MLB will clear up any confusion. NOT.

[Senor Azul]

The following example play is found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (Chapter 15, p. 126). Although it is not exactly like what happened in the case under discussion, it might be helpful since it illustrates an even more extreme example of a fielder blocking the base.

The pitcher is covering first on a ground ball to the first baseman. As he reaches for the throw, the pitcher misses the ball and falls onto first base. The batter-runner, arriving at about the same time, trips and rolls over the pitcher, failing to touch the base. The catcher, who backed up the throw, runs to the batter-runner (lying on the ground beyond first) and tags him for an appeal:  no obstruction, the batter-runner is out. The pitcher need not “disappear” on a thrown ball.

A catcher or any fielder does have a right to be in the path of a runner if he is in the act of fielding a throw. Any contact with a runner must be a fluid, continuous result of the fielder’s effort to glove the ball; as such the contact was unavoidable and is incidental. Separate, discontinuous movement, however, exhibiting an intent to block the base, is obstruction. 

[Jimurray]

12 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The following example play is found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (Chapter 15, p. 126). Although it is not exactly like what happened in the case under discussion, it might be helpful since it illustrates an even more extreme example of a fielder blocking the base.

The pitcher is covering first on a ground ball to the first baseman. As he reaches for the throw, the pitcher misses the ball and falls onto first base. The batter-runner, arriving at about the same time, trips and rolls over the pitcher, failing to touch the base. The catcher, who backed up the throw, runs to the batter-runner (lying on the ground beyond first) and tags him for an appeal:  no obstruction, the batter-runner is out. The pitcher need not “disappear” on a thrown ball.

A catcher or any fielder does have a right to be in the path of a runner if he is in the act of fielding a throw. Any contact with a runner must be a fluid, continuous result of the fielder’s effort to glove the ball; as such the contact was unavoidable and is incidental. Separate, discontinuous movement, however, exhibiting an intent to block the base, is obstruction. 

"The pitcher is covering first on a ground ball to the first baseman. As he reaches for the throw, the pitcher misses the ball and falls onto first base. The batter-runner, arriving at about the same time, trips and rolls over the pitcher, failing to touch the base. The catcher, who backed up the throw, runs to the batter-runner (lying on the ground beyond first) and tags him for an appeal:  no obstruction, the batter-runner is out. The pitcher need not “disappear” on a thrown ball."

I wonder if this is still true with a missed  throw. It wasn't applied in the 2013 WS. Other than the NCAA exception I think the fielder does have to dissappear once hemisses the throw.

[Richvee]

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/batter-runner-beats-the-throw-but-steps-on-fielders-foot-safe-or-out/

[Richvee]

Pretty sure we've got OBS in FED on this play

[noumpere]

23 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I wonder if this is still true with a missed  throw. It wasn't applied in the 2013 WS. Other than the NCAA exception I think the fielder does have to dissappear once hemisses the throw.

What I was taught; don't know if it still applies:

A fielder is given absolute protection on a batted ball, so he must immediately disappear once the ball is past him

A fielder is NOT given absolute protection on a thrown ball, so he need not immediately disappear once the ball is past him.

 

(and, yes, there's lots of absolutes in there so I;m sure we can all come up with a play or two where this doesn't literally apply)

[maven]

noumpere's mantra is pretty nearly true. It explains, for example, why we can have train wrecks during a thrown ball but never on a batted ball.

The only obvious exception is tangle/untangle on batted balls near the plate. Even that's been circumscribed lately, so that if the batter is late leaving, he's again liable for INT.

[Jimurray]

On 8/15/2020 at 9:40 PM, Richvee said:

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/batter-runner-beats-the-throw-but-steps-on-fielders-foot-safe-or-out/

I'm guessing that Blazer called the out after the pitcher returned the ball to the base or tagged the runner. So he had a missed base and reversed his call on appeal and his safe call was not the current MLB mechanic. His out call stood on replay so they couldn't tell if there ever was a touch or not?  But an ex-MLB umpire says that the runner was out because the base was being touched with the ball in the glove before the runner completely passed 1B. Would that be his opinion or did replay say the call stands because Blazer got it wrong but it was right anyway. In any case I don't think I would be any quicker on my feet if this happened to me.