Jump to content

OBS/INT PHI vs WASH 6/17


zoops

Recommended Posts

In the moment, I'm thinking obstruction.  Since the fielder is diving, I'm thinking he didn't have a play.  Watching the replay though, I can definitely see the argument for interference.

The runner does try to veer away ... but whether he was trying to give the fielder room (trying to avoid the interference) or was trying to avoid a collision (obstruction) is what we don't know. 

When the play starts with both players that close to one another, it is honestly just looking like a tangle to me as both players are essentially doing what they should be doing.  I'm not sure that's an option though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zoops said:

I"m sure the uefl will have a writeup on this one, but my initial take on this is INT - an interesting play for sure.

https://www.mlb.com/phillies/video/hoskins-scores-martinez-ejected?t=t143-default-vtp

what did New York call it. are you allowed to IR this situation. and, if so, had Washington run out of challenges?? Once it is sent to NY (if it can be) it is out of the control of the crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crew evidently judged that the ball was hit sufficiently hard that it would have gotten through anyway. So, no hindrance = no INT.

In amateur ball at any level, I'd have INT. There's some doubt in my mind whether F6 could have gotten there, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maven ... I think am with you on my initial thought, that while the fielder looked to be attempting a play, there was not a play to be made (that's where the replay may have changed my mind).  It's interesting that I go the other direction though -- I typically give benefit of the doubt to the offense.  As I reflect on that, I think I go that way since they have "less field to work with".  While they should leave the base path to avoid the fielder, the runner does have the base path limitation to consider.  Their natural inclination is not to immediately adjust an angle (as a fielder's is) with their first movement.

However there is another piece I didn't consider that your comment did make me think about.  Even though you didn't say it, I would like to see what was happening leading up to the play. 

As I noted, the fielder and runner started off very close to one another.  I would give some thought as to who crowded whom to start with.  I know that isn't a "letter of the law" opinion ... but I'm going to try not to give a call to a player who setting up to force the interference/obstruction call.  IMO, if a player is doing that (setting up right next to the opposition), then that is where the real interference/obstruction occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I would like to see what was happening leading up to the play. 

14 seconds in has 2 views pre-pitch that don't seem to leave anyting out.

Runner is moving but not in a way I'd call intentional to get a call. Can definitely see how that would be done though (especially HS and younger) so good call out.

Seems 3BC was playing the OBS call by sending R2 (I don't think he couldn't have expected him to be safe on the throw).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to the game on the radio. The announcers said that OBS/INT are not reviewable. So that answers that. 

As a Phillies fan I am not sure the umpires got it right. Not sure they got it wrong. That is a hard call to make at full speed with no benefit of replay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mussgrass said:

I was listening to the game on the radio. The announcers said that OBS/INT are not reviewable. So that answers that. 

As a Phillies fan I am not sure the umpires got it right. Not sure they got it wrong. That is a hard call to make at full speed with no benefit of replay.

thank you for the IR scoop. so MLB managements fault that this is not reviewable even if it was not overturned anyway. with all the others that are IR'able, nothing should be left off the table.

but hello, the more things not IR'able, the more chances for a good ole day regular, get it off your chest argument and ejection. maybe that is why it seems the ball/strike arguments have seemed to increase (dont know what the analytics say to that), since that is the only thing left to argue.

usually it seems like on interference the onus and benefit of the doubt would go to the fielder. and it seems like on an obstruction, the onus and benefit would go to the runner, and that includes benefit of the doubt on placement of the runner, so apparently the 3rd base coach, gets a little credit for the Phillies for being their teams rules czar if that is what one wants to say.

https://www.mlb.com/news/phillies-nationals-umpire-dan-iassogna-discuss-obstruction-call

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3rd base coach knew the rules, for sure, and recognized what the umpire who called the OBS was calling and signaling. The only thing he had to lose was if they only were placing the runner at 3rd then the out at home would stand. Maybe that was communicated during the action, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

When the play starts with both players that close to one another, it is honestly just looking like a tangle to me as both players are essentially doing what they should be doing.  I'm not sure that's an option though.

I'm sure.  It's not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I'm sure.  It's not.

Once again demonstrating the need to know the rules, not judging "what they should be doing."

That non-rule-book phrase might cause more incorrect rulings (no-calls) than any other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

it is honestly just looking like a tangle to me as both players are essentially doing what they should be doing. 

It's not an option. If we're going to use Tangle/Untangle, it must be immediate and directly in front of home plate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, maven said:

Once again demonstrating the need to know the rules, not judging "what they should be doing."

That non-rule-book phrase might cause more incorrect rulings (no-calls) than any other.

9 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

It's not an option. If we're going to use Tangle/Untangle, it must be immediate and directly in front of home plate. 

 

I'm searching, but I'm not finding anything in the NFHS rulebook that supports this practice at any position (neither on the base path as I suggested, nor at the plate).  The words tangle/untangle never appear.  I am not finding any exception.  Before I go further, I'll ask for a rulebook citation to support this common practice.

8-4-2g

Any runner is out when:

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out; or

1. If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection. If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility for avoiding contact.

NFHS. 2020 NFHS Baseball Rules Book . NFHS. Kindle Edition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest I offend by bringing up NFHS in the OBR thread ... OBR DOES  address this contingency.  I should specify my comment is leveled at Fed.

The OBR citation:

Rule 6.01(a )(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Lest I offend by bringing up NFHS in the OBR thread ... OBR DOES  address this contingency.  I should specify my comment is leveled at Fed.

The OBR citation:

Rule 6.01(a )(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

Yep...and this play is 100% not tangle/untangle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2022 at 11:45 AM, maven said:

The crew evidently judged that the ball was hit sufficiently hard that it would have gotten through anyway. So, no hindrance = no INT.

In amateur ball at any level, I'd have INT. There's some doubt in my mind whether F6 could have gotten there, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense here.

Agree  to me that was too close of a chance at the ball with full speed and no replay. 

Link to comment
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...