Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, he did obstruct the runner by making him deviate from his path.  Did he cause the batter to be out when he otherwise wouldn’t have?  No.  But the rule doesn’t have a stipulation that we penalize

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Comments?

Mike

Las Vegas

Well, he did obstruct the runner by making him deviate from his path.  Did he cause the batter to be out when he otherwise wouldn’t have?  No.  But the rule doesn’t have a stipulation that we penalize only when it caused an out.

Tough call?  Yes

tough sell to coaches and fans?  Yes

correct call?  Yes

I liken this to a run down...99% of the time the runner will get out, but a fielder who doesn’t get out of their way causes OBS, even when it likely didn’t cause the out, still OBS

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit submit too early...the only argument against it I have is that the runner deviated his path, but that path started way inside of the runners lane.  Had he been in the RL, he maybe doesn’t have to deviate.

However, a baseline isn’t established until a tag attempt is being made.

Does the runner have to be in RL because the ball and play are near the line? (Actually asking, not quizzing). If not, this is OBS

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ShaunH said:

I hit submit too early...the only argument against it I have is that the runner deviated his path, but that path started way inside of the runners lane.  Had he been in the RL, he maybe doesn’t have to deviate.

However, a baseline isn’t established until a tag attempt is being made.

Does the runner have to be in RL because the ball and play are near the line? (Actually asking, not quizzing). If not, this is OBS

A BR only needs to be in the RL when the ball is being thrown to first and the runner interferes with the throw  or the fielder taking the throw (generic statement -- the actual rule and implication is a bit more nuanced than that, especially for FED)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could use some additional education here, because I don't see how that was obstruction. The runner was running in fair territory as the pitcher fielded the batted ball going up the 1st baseline. He fielded the ball and tossed it to F3 without changing direction, something he has every right to do, and he can't disappear after the ball leaves his hands. Had he caught this ball literally on the baseline and tossed it up the baseline to 1st, and BR ran into him in fair territory as soon as the ball was released, would you call obstruction? Does the fielder making the throw have to change the vector of his momentum to avoid the BR, or does the BR have to avoid the fielder fielding the ball and throwing to 1st? I got the momentum of the throw continuing at the time of the called obstruction. I got nothing on this play. Did the BR change his direction? Yes. In my mind he veered in the direction where he should have been in the 1st place:  the running lane with a batted ball being fielded up the 1st baseline. I got the BR in jeopardy of a violation of the running lane rule clear up until he doesn't collide with the fielder making the throw or get hit by the throw. But, that could be one of the many reasons I'm not a MLB umpire!

Ok!  I'm ready to be flamed 😀  Seriously, I want to be able to see it to learn from it. But I just don't see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Recontra said:

I could use some additional education here, because I don't see how that was obstruction. The runner was running in fair territory as the pitcher fielded the batted ball going up the 1st baseline. He fielded the ball and tossed it to F3 without changing direction, something he has every right to do, and he can't disappear after the ball leaves his hands. Had he caught this ball literally on the baseline and tossed it up the baseline to 1st, and BR ran into him as soon as the ball was released, would you call obstruction? Does the fielder making the throw have to change the vector of his momentum to avoid the BR, or does the BR have to avoid the fielder fielding the ball and throwing to 1st? I got the momentum of the throw continuing at the time of the called obstruction. I got nothing on this play. Did the BR change his direction? Yes. In my mind he veered in the direction where he should have been in the 1st place:  the running lane with a batted ball being fielded up the 1st baseline. I got the BR in violation of the running lane rule clear up until he doesn't collide with the fielder making the throw or get hit by the throw. But, that could be one of the many reasons I'm not a MLB umpire!

Ok!  I'm ready to be flamed 😀  Seriously, I want to be able to see it to learn from it. But I just don't see it.

Lots to dissect here...

1)  Runner's lane violation is actually not a violation unless and until they interfere with a play/throw at 1st base.  If the batter hits a clean hits into the OF gap, they could run in a giant snake pattern between home and 1st if they wanted.  A runner establishes their own base path and is not required to be in the RL on a ball hit, fielded, and thrown in front of him.  If a tag attempt was made by F1, he can not deviate more than 3 feet from a direct line to 1st base at the time of the tag attempt, which didn't happen here but is just a point to be made.

2)  I agree with you about momentum to some degree, but at the same time, a runner running between 2nd and 3rd has momentum too, and may not be aware a grounder is coming right in front of him, F6 shows up in his vision to field the ball...you can't not call INT because he had momentum going to third....so a player is responsible for their movement, location, and are subject to OBS/INT if they can not do so, even if unintentional.

3)  A fielder is protected from INT when they are fielding the batted ball (one fielder is)...that protection does not extend indefinitely.  Also, a fielder who is in the act of fielding a throw is protected from causing OBS for the moment (can cause it after the fact if they miss the throw and other possible scenarios).  Once the pitcher released the ball, he was neither.

 

Now, this is all under the rules and interpretations and OBS can be justified here, but it also is a call that falls under the category of, "if you don't call it, is the offensive coach going to come steamrolling out of the dugout?"  95% chance he isn't.

I don't have a great answer, but I would guess the MLB umps are separated by always getting the rules right (or trying to anyways) and uphold it to the letter of the law.  Maybe you don't call this in a 14U summer game because it isn't worth the headache, but in higher levels, you strive to gets the calls right, even when it is controversial.

Just my 2 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShaunH said:

Lots to dissect here...

1)  Runner's lane violation is actually not a violation unless and until they interfere with a play/throw at 1st base.  If the batter hits a clean hits into the OF gap, they could run in a giant snake pattern between home and 1st if they wanted.  A runner establishes their own base path and is not required to be in the RL on a ball hit, fielded, and thrown in front of him.  If a tag attempt was made by F1, he can not deviate more than 3 feet from a direct line to 1st base at the time of the tag attempt, which didn't happen here but is just a point to be made.

2)  I agree with you about momentum to some degree, but at the same time, a runner running between 2nd and 3rd has momentum too, and may not be aware a grounder is coming right in front of him, F6 shows up in his vision to field the ball...you can't not call INT because he had momentum going to third....so a player is responsible for their movement, location, and are subject to OBS/INT if they can not do so, even if unintentional.

3)  A fielder is protected from INT when they are fielding the batted ball (one fielder is)...that protection does not extend indefinitely.  Also, a fielder who is in the act of fielding a throw is protected from causing OBS for the moment (can cause it after the fact if they miss the throw and other possible scenarios).  Once the pitcher released the ball, he was neither.

 

Now, this is all under the rules and interpretations and OBS can be justified here, but it also is a call that falls under the category of, "if you don't call it, is the offensive coach going to come steamrolling out of the dugout?"  95% chance he isn't.

I don't have a great answer, but I would guess the MLB umps are separated by always getting the rules right (or trying to anyways) and uphold it to the letter of the law.  Maybe you don't call this in a 14U summer game because it isn't worth the headache, but in higher levels, you strive to gets the calls right, even when it is controversial.

Just my 2 cents

A fielder can NEVER interfer with a runner. He can OBSTRUCT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UMP45 said:

A fielder can NEVER interfer with a runner. He can OBSTRUCT.

Thanks for the info. If you read my post, I said the fielder is protected from INT, meaning they are protected from being interfered with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that since he was no longer fielding, he wasn’t protected (since they came together this is a relevant point), and he wasn’t the one fielding the throw, so he isn’t protected by the act of fielding the throw from causing obstruction, thus, his actions that caused the runner to deviate are in fact OBS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the BR steered into the fielder (F1) who had just released the ball.  To me it's the same as in basketball a guy tries to take a charge.

I think it's a booger and a no-call for OBS would have passed the smell test too!

Mike

Las Vegas

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

IMO, the BR steered into the fielder (F1) who had just released the ball.  To me it's the same as in basketball a guy tries to take a charge.

I think it's a booger and a no-call for OBS would have passed the smell test too!

Mike

Las Vegas

That would ignore the entire concept of obstruction. The runner gets to choose his path.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShaunH said:

My point was that since he was no longer fielding, he wasn’t protected (since they came together this is a relevant point), and he wasn’t the one fielding the throw, so he isn’t protected by the act of fielding the throw from causing obstruction, thus, his actions that caused the runner to deviate are in fact OBS.

(For some reason, I am unable to view the video in this thread) 

 

From J/R:

 

image.png.923e77ed2b295c40022c68c3aa930cd4.pngat fro

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2021 at 3:21 PM, SH0102 said:

Well, he did obstruct the runner by making him deviate from his path.  Did he cause the batter to be out when he otherwise wouldn’t have?  No.  But the rule doesn’t have a stipulation that we penalize only when it caused an out.

Tough call?  Yes

tough sell to coaches and fans?  Yes

correct call?  Yes

I liken this to a run down...99% of the time the runner will get out, but a fielder who doesn’t get out of their way causes OBS, even when it likely didn’t cause the out, still OBS

Since he was NOT in the runners lane, you could make an argument for INTERFERENCE.

If he was in the runners lane, I would call obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...