Obstruction Call Dodgers-Cubs

[Pearberr]

R1 outs don't matter.

R1 leaves early and Ted Lilly picks him off, throwing to James Loney at first. After a short rundown, the fielder near second has the ball, and is chasing the runner back to first. Loney is standing in the basepath, 10 feet in front of first. The runner, runs well around Loney, and dives back into first.

U2 calls obstruction on Loney for standing in the basepath, and rewards the runner 2nd base.

I always assumed that in MLB, obstruction of this type would require contact, and that obstruction does not grant one more base, but rather whatever the umpire thinks he would have gotten. And the runner was in no way going to make it to second unless half of the Dodgers fielders dropped dead.

Just curious as to what else might have happened on that play. Or if I'm dead wrong.

[UmpJM]

R1 outs don't matter.

R1 leaves early and Ted Lilly picks him off, throwing to James Loney at first. After a short rundown, the fielder near second has the ball, and is chasing the runner back to first. Loney is standing in the basepath, 10 feet in front of first. The runner, runs well around Loney, and dives back into first.

U2 calls obstruction on Loney for standing in the basepath, and rewards the runner 2nd base.

I always assumed that in MLB, obstruction of this type would require contact, and that obstruction does not grant one more base, but rather whatever the umpire thinks he would have gotten. And the runner was in no way going to make it to second unless half of the Dodgers fielders dropped dead.

Just curious as to what else might have happened on that play. Or if I'm dead wrong.

Pearberr,

I happened to be watching that game then as well. The call was dead on, 100% accurate in all respects.

Since the obstruction occurred during a run-down, it was by rule, "Type A" Obstruction (7.06(a) ). The ball is immediately dead, and the obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position at the time he was obstructed.

Obstruction does NOT require contact - it depends on the situation. Evans says:

Fielders may obstruct runners without actually touching them. For instance, an infielder who is not in the act of

fielding a thrown ball cannot stand in the runner's projected base path forcing him to "go around" the fielder to avoid

contact. This would be obstruction.

To me, that's a pretty "dead-on" description of what happened in this play.

I was surprised that Mattingly even came out and that the "discussion" lasted so long.

JM

[gdpmumin]

This would have been a type A OBS, in which case the runner is the one being played and, if obstructed, gets at least 1 base beyond the last base legally touched. In this case, he was awarded 2B because his last legally touch base was 1B. I was more impressed that the play-by-play announcers got the call right. They actually called it obstruction rather than the usual "interference."

UmpJM, I was surprised the discussion took so long, too. Not sure what else there was to talk about.

[Pearberr]

Thanks.

I could have sworn that the Obstruction on this play would have given him first base safely. I thought that the rule to give him second was strictly for High School. BUT, that's why I am going to start hanging around here more often. To learn

And I don't know which broadcast you were watching, but Steve Lyons for the Dodgers was saying Interference left and right. Although whoever his partner was (Not Scully), was getting it right calling it obstruction.

[yawetag]

This would have been a type A OBS, in which case the runner is the one being played and, if obstructed, gets at least 1 base beyond the last base legally touched.

I can't think of a situation where type A is giving the runner more than one base.

[mstaylor]

This would have been a type A OBS, in which case the runner is the one being played and, if obstructed, gets at least 1 base beyond the last base legally touched.

I can't think of a situation where type A is giving the runner more than one base.

R1 is going first to third. As he is coming into third he is obstructed, ball is on the way. That is a type A obstruction, the throw goes out of play.

[yawetag]

This would have been a type A OBS, in which case the runner is the one being played and, if obstructed, gets at least 1 base beyond the last base legally touched.

I can't think of a situation where type A is giving the runner more than one base.

R1 is going first to third. As he is coming into third he is obstructed, ball is on the way. That is a type A obstruction, the throw goes out of play.

Point taken. I was thinking of a situation where the ball remains in-play and the OBS itself caused the umpire to award multiple bases. You're right, though.

[Thunderheads]

Guys, ...please do some research and post videos.....much better this way!!

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14087409

[mstaylor]

Show off! It does give you a chance to hear the announcers totally botch the play. First they thought it was a balk, then they say possibly interference, then they say it can't be interference because there was no contact. It is a shame they make a living talking about things and get so many things wrong.

[Stretch]

The weathermen of the sports world...although the weathermen/women have been pretty right on about the crazy weather here in St. Louis.

[sdix00]

The weathermen of the sports world...although the weathermen/women have been pretty right on about the crazy weather here in St. Louis.

Perhaps we would be much more forgiving if FOX put a girl in a tight skirt and sweater on the screen to simultaneously comment on the play. Analysis would probably be about the same, and well, yeah.