Super Fast Center Fielder Tags Out Runner at Home Analysis

[Lindsay]

In a viral video, a lightning-quick center fielder sprints to tag a batter-runner out at the plate on a play in which the defense left third base and home uncovered. Although most attention focuses on the fast outfielder, umpires noticed a key yet ignored aspect of this play that, if called, would have resulted in the batter-runner being declared safe.

As the batter-runner's fly ball falls in shallow center field, it draws both the shortstop and second baseman to the outfield, which entices the third baseman to cover second base as the batter-runner tries to stretch his blooper into a double. As this in turn leaves third base uncovered, the batter-runner continues onto third, drawing the catcher to third base as the batter-runner arrives. This in turn leaves home plate uncovered, and the batter-runner soon sprints for home, only to be run down by the pursuing center fielder for an out.

But as we rewind the tape to the batter-runner rounding third base, we notice a very distinct interaction between him and the catcher. As the runner approaches third base, he looks up and sees the catcher charging up the foul line. The batter-runner then stutter-steps to get around the catcher and runs home, tagged out by fractions of a second.

This stutter-step at third base slowed the batter down just enough to enable the center fielder to timely tag him at home, and because that slowdown was caused by the catcher standing in the runner's way, we must consider obstruction: "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

Because a play was being made on the batter-runner at the time of the obstruction (the center fielder was running with the ball toward him), this is OBR Rule 6.01(h)(1) Type 1 obstruction in professional and college baseball, the penalty for which is to award the obstructed runner "at least one base beyond the base they had last legally touched." The at least one part of this rule allows the plate award, even if the batter-runner may not have technically touched third base yet when obstruction occurred (it's really close). NCAA college is similar to the pro rule in this regard.

In high school's NFHS 8-3-1-2, obstruction is treated a little differently but results in the same outcome on this specific play: "the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond the runner's position on base when the obstruction occurred." All levels allow additional base awards to nullify the act of obstruction.

Had obstruction been called, the batter-runner would have scored...and perhaps the internet deprived of its opportunity to praise a speedy fielder who covered more than 100 feet to make an impressive play.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: CF chases down runner sliding into home plate for a dramatic out...but was it?

View the full article

[Velho]

By OP logic, if BR slowed down to stop at 3B with F2 coming up and (unlike the play) catching the ball to make a tag would be OBS, no?

That would be comparable to call runner out of the baseline when he rounds third. Someone is trying to tag him and he went well outside 3 feet in direct line between 3B and HP.

[SeeingEyeDog]

It's rare that I disagree with Lindsay and...I'm going to disagree here. F2 is actually perfectly positioned here especially given that he doesn't have the ball not is he in the act of fielding the ball. My read on this play is...the runner is shuffling their feet because they are reading the 3B coach who has given the stop sign after which the runner then makes his own decision to try and advance to home.

Whether the runner is at full speed running through the bag OR shuffling his feet, slowing down and then accelerating after deciding to try and advance...his running path is going to cause him to swing out into foul territory. The only time he would cut hard across 3B and run in fair territory (where the catcher is standing) would be if he came to a full stop...AND then advanced. Because after a full stop, you would want to take the shortest path and then...you would have obstruction. But, in my judgement, the catcher does not cause him to be hindered or impeded so, I do not have obstruction.

Now...that being said. The mechanic movement or lack thereof by this crew is suboptimal. I would not expect anyone to get the camera's angle on this play because that's unreasonable and not what we do but, the crew has to cover the runner better into and through 3B so they have more credibility on any call or non-call here. I don't know about your markets, but in my market, the coaches know our mechanics and know we should have had better coverage on this play than this crew did and would absolutely blister us for it.

~Dawg

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Now...that being said. The mechanic movement or lack thereof by this crew is suboptimal. I would not expect anyone to get the camera's angle on this play because that's unreasonable and not what we do but, the crew has to cover the runner better into and through 3B so they have more credibility on any call or non-call here. I don't know about your markets, but in my market, the coaches know our mechanics and know we should have had better coverage on this play than this crew did and would absolutely blister us for it

It looks like U1 pretty much did nothing here. He didn't go out, and he didn't slash, looks like he just hung around the 1B cutout and watched. U3 needed to cover 2B, which he did. PU couldn't rotate up ( good thing he didn't)  because he read U1... who wasn't rotating home. U3 didn't appear to be the super mobile type,  over committed to 2B a bit. He kept running towards 2B even after BR passes the bag. (Maybe anticipating BR stopping and a possible play back into 2B)

Good mechanics by PU. Good look, good timing. 

[ErichKeane]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

It looks like U1 pretty much did nothing here. He didn't go out, and he didn't slash, looks like he just hung around the 1B cutout and watched. U3 needed to cover 2B, which he did. PU couldn't rotate up ( good thing he didn't)  because he read U1... who wasn't rotating home. U3 didn't appear to be the super mobile type,  over committed to 2B a bit. He kept running towards 2B even after BR passes the bag. (Maybe anticipating BR stopping and a possible play back into 2B)

Good mechanics by PU. Good look, good timing. 

Yeah, this is exactly my thoughts on the rotation watching the play.  I don't do 3 man, so don't really know, but U1 was still inside, so I was surprised to see the rotation wasn't PU to 3rd, U1 follows to cover the plate.  U3 seemed to do fine with his level of mobility, though would have been better served picking up some angle(steps toward the mound) for the possible tag by the catcher (rather than the few steps down the line).  PU seemed to do what he could, which was about bupkis.  Although, all of this is easy to say from the comfort of my living room

In the end, I don't agree with Lindsay (doesn't happen often!): I'm OK with the no-call at 3rd.  I think a reasonable argument could be made for obstruction (as she did), but my read is as many in the thread have it: the stutter step was slowing down to stay at 3rd, then realizing the plate was unoccupied, then taking his natural path home, which coincidentally was around the catcher.

So in the end, this is a judgement call that could be reasonably justified either way, so they got it right in the end.

[Richvee]

2 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

Yeah, this is exactly my thoughts on the rotation watching the play.  I don't do 3 man, so don't really know, but U1 was still inside, so I was surprised to see the rotation wasn't PU to 3rd, U1 follows to cover the plate.  U3 seemed to do fine with his level of mobility, though would have been better served picking up some angle(steps toward the mound) for the possible tag by the catcher (rather than the few steps down the line).  PU seemed to do what he could, which was about bupkis.  Although, all of this is easy to say from the comfort of my living room

In the end, I don't agree with Lindsay (doesn't happen often!): I'm OK with the no-call at 3rd.  I think a reasonable argument could be made for obstruction (as she did), but my read is as many in the thread have it: the stutter step was slowing down to stay at 3rd, then realizing the plate was unoccupied, then taking his natural path home, which coincidentally was around the catcher.

So in the end, this is a judgement call that could be reasonably justified either way, so they got it right in the end.

Yep. My biggest disagreement with Lyn here is her calling it “textbook obstruction” 

[Tborze]

7 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Yep. My biggest disagreement with Lyn here is her calling it “textbook obstruction” 

What else would you call it?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

PU couldn't rotate up ( good thing he didn't)  because he read U1... who wasn't rotating home.

Friend (does some JC but looking to do D3+) worked a game with a D1 ump. Friend was U1. No one on, double+ to the OF, U1 when to rotate down. He looked up and saw PU itching to rotate up but starting dead at him 🤣. I guess U1 was a little slow to rotate and PU wasn't going if U1 wasn't coming down. [the story was better when he told it in person with pantomime - I swear]

[maven]

Just now, Tborze said:

What else would you call it?

Not obstruction.

The runner slows because he thinks he's done at 3B. Then he reads that HP has no fielder, because F2 is standing next to him, and he restarts. His base path is the normal one for any runner rounding a base, and F2 simply isn't in the way.

[MadMax]

53 minutes ago, Richvee said:

calling it “textbook obstruction” 

 

45 minutes ago, Tborze said:

What else would you call it?

It very much is not. Runners, especially at the amateur level, in full flight change their strides and steps, most notably… as they approach a base. 
At the simplest level, they are altering their steps so that they hit the corner of the base and push off to the next one. Then, as they’re approaching third base, and the 3BC, they are often “fluttering the throttle”, awaiting the 3BC giving them the STOP ✋🏼 or GO sign. If you watch the video, focus on the 3BC; he is giving the STOP HERE sign! 
The proximity of a Fielder alone has no affect on this. So too, just because the Catcher is running towards the base in anticipation of receiving a throw doesn’t constitute nor convincingly imply a “fake tag”, and if the Runner adjusts his path and/or initiates a slide because he anticipates a play, that’s his choice. 

This is an instance of a pundit prying too deeply into a play to generate analysis and discourse; unfortunately, it becomes discord, because when it comes to judgement, there will always be someone who will seek out and identify with the opposite of a consensus. 

57 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I don't do 3 man,

Don’t feel bad; neither did any of that crew. Collectively, I’d guess they had less than 5 games of 3-man in their careers. 

 
Can’t really blame them; I’d be upset with their association (as a source of training and education). 

It’s simply this – if U1 went out, then PU would (should) have been up the 1BL, or at least returning back from the 1BL when the Runner and Fielder-with-the-ball (FwtB) were headed towards it. Since most PUs are taught in “clinics” to go 3BLX, then why not stay over there? Why be (back) POP and slightly 1BLX?? 
My guess is that PU never went up the 1BL, and instead stayed POP (lazy), or started to go to 3B, then aborted that. 

If U1 did not go out – instead, doing a few read steps – and deduced that a rotation (should) still (be) is on, then he should be headed down towards the plate, mirroring the BR traveling from 2B to 3B. Likewise, the PU should have mirrored BR from 1B to 2B, going to 3B. It doesn’t appear that PU ever took more than a cursory step or two towards 3B. 
And then the U3… he’s late getting to the 2B cutout, looks like he’s running “by what the diagram lays out”, and looks surprised on what to do next. The lack of (umpire) coverage at 3B is not his fault, per se… if his U1 had definitively gone out, then he would have 2B and 3B. But because his U1 was so milquetoast on going out or staying “in the rotation”, and/or the PU stayed plate, U3 was not alerted that he had 3B to cover until it was far too late. 

[ErichKeane]

35 minutes ago, MadMax said:

 

It very much is not. Runners, especially at the amateur level, in full flight change their strides and steps, most notably… as they approach a base. 
At the simplest level, they are altering their steps so that they hit the corner of the base and push off to the next one. Then, as they’re approaching third base, and the 3BC, they are often “fluttering the throttle”, awaiting the 3BC giving them the STOP ✋🏼 or GO sign. If you watch the video, focus on the 3BC; he is giving the STOP HERE sign! 
The proximity of a Fielder alone has no affect on this. So too, just because the Catcher is running towards the base in anticipation of receiving a throw doesn’t constitute nor convincingly imply a “fake tag”, and if the Runner adjusts his path and/or initiates a slide because he anticipates a play, that’s his choice. 

This is an instance of a pundit prying too deeply into a play to generate analysis and discourse; unfortunately, it becomes discord, because when it comes to judgement, there will always be someone who will seek out and identify with the opposite of a consensus. 

Don’t feel bad; neither did any of that crew. Collectively, I’d guess they had less than 5 games of 3-man in their careers. 

 
Can’t really blame them; I’d be upset with their association (as a source of training and education). 

It’s simply this – if U1 went out, then PU would (should) have been up the 1BL, or at least returning back from the 1BL when the Runner and Fielder-with-the-ball (FwtB) were headed towards it. Since most PUs are taught in “clinics” to go 3BLX, then why not stay over there? Why be (back) POP and slightly 1BLX?? 
My guess is that PU never went up the 1BL, and instead stayed POP (lazy), or started to go to 3B, then aborted that. 

If U1 did not go out – instead, doing a few read steps – and deduced that a rotation (should) still (be) is on, then he should be headed down towards the plate, mirroring the BR traveling from 2B to 3B. Likewise, the PU should have mirrored BR from 1B to 2B, going to 3B. It doesn’t appear that PU ever took more than a cursory step or two towards 3B. 
And then the U3… he’s late getting to the 2B cutout, looks like he’s running “by what the diagram lays out”, and looks surprised on what to do next. The lack of (umpire) coverage at 3B is not his fault, per se… if his U1 had definitively gone out, then he would have 2B and 3B. But because his U1 was so milquetoast on going out or staying “in the rotation”, and/or the PU stayed plate, U3 was not alerted that he had 3B to cover until it was far too late. 

Agreed with the 1st 1/2 100%.

As far as rotations: I can't blame them much at all.  I do 2 man ~70% of the time (with 1 man the rest), and get partners of all ages that don't rotate at all at the plate.  We as a community do a bad job with the importance of rotations, and the teaching of rotations.

I basically have shell-shock from all the times I have done my rotation 'correctly' as BU on a 1st-to-3rd situation just to look over and see my partner nowhere near the play at 3B, and have to make the call from far away.  OR, done the rotation right as a PU, done my call out, just to have the base-ump standing next to me making the call (I learned the hard way when doing THAT rotation to hold onto my call until I can see the other ump NOT making the call).

Effectively, rotations in GENERAL are an 'advanced skill' for umpires that I find a majority of guys don't have.  So expecting a group doing 3 man (HS, so probably only for the playoffs) to know and DO the rotations is, IMO, a fools errand.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

Effectively, rotations in GENERAL are an 'advanced skill' for umpires that I find a majority of guys don't have.  So expecting a group doing 3 man (HS, so probably only for the playoffs) to know and DO the rotations is, IMO, a fools errand.

I was with you til here. I don’t  thinkk 2 man rotations are advanced. I think what you and I see at the HS level are

a) completely immobile umpires due do being out of shape, or just too old to move any faster than a quick walk. 
or

b) just pure laziness. 
nothing more, nothing less. 

[Richvee]

9 hours ago, Tborze said:

What else would you call it?

I call it “Very debatable”. Maybe even “a stretch. 
“ textbook” implies ”no brainer.” 

This is far from that 
 

[ErichKeane]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

I was with you til here. I don’t  thinkk 2 man rotations are advanced. I think what you and I see at the HS level are

a) completely immobile umpires due do being out of shape, or just too old to move any faster than a quick walk. 
or

b) just pure laziness. 
nothing more, nothing less. 

I definitely have both A & B, but also, "been doing it a few years, and never learned" types as well.  Though I do a lot of 14U with partners that uses NFHS rules.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, ErichKeane said:

I definitely have both A & B, but also, "been doing it a few years, and never learned" types as well.  Though I do a lot of 14U with partners that uses NFHS rules.

"I haven't learned it" can also be classified under lazy. Read an umpire manual. Ask questions when working with guys like us who know what we're doing. Put in the work. Learn the craft. Maybe it's me, but if you're collecting a fee for your services, the least you should do is know what your doing. If you don't....sorry, you're being lazy.  The info is right out there and easily accessible. . Geez, when I started I must have read Evan's 2 umpire system book every night for 6 months. Being on a field, getting paid, and not know what the heck I was doing was just too embarrassing to consider.  

[ErichKeane]

5 minutes ago, Richvee said:

"I haven't learned it" can also be classified under lazy. Read an umpire manual. Ask questions when working with guys like us who know what we're doing. Put in the work. Learn the craft. Maybe it's me, but if you're collecting a fee for your services, the least you should do is know what your doing. If you don't....sorry, you're being lazy.  The info is right out there and easily accessible. . Geez, when I started I must have read Evan's 2 umpire system book every night for 6 months. Being on a field, getting paid, and not know what the heck I was doing was just too embarrassing to consider.  

Obviously I've done this stuff as well, but a vast majority of the guys I work with only learn because someone experienced tells them to.  That level of initiative isn't particularly common it seems, guys start for a few bucks, or to support a local league, and it ends there (many don't even do more than skim the rulebook, let alone read casebooks/umpire manuals).