MLB Ejection 139 - Hunter Wendelstedt (4; Dave Roberts)

[Lindsay]

3B Umpire Hunter Wendelstedt ejected Dodgers manager Dave Roberts (obstruction call on Miguel Rojas; QOCY) in the top of the 6th inning of the #Phillies-#Dodgers game. With none out and one on, Phillies batter Brandon Marsh bunted a 0-0 fastball from Dodgers pitcher Alex Vesia on the ground to third baseman Enrique Hernández, who threw to shortstop Miguel Rojas as Phillies baserunner R2 Alec Bohm slid into third base, ruled obstruction on Rojas by 3B Umpire Wendelstedt. Replays indicate Rojas impeded Bohm's progress prior to fielding or possessing the ball, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Dodgers were leading, 4-3. The Phillies ultimately won the contest, 9-4.

This is Hunter Wendelstedt (21)'s 4th ejection of 2024.

*Official Baseball Rules Definition of Terms: "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."

OBR 6.01(h)(1): "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before they touch first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction."

This is the 139th ejection report of the 2024 MLB regular season.

This is the 68th manager ejection of 2024. Ejection Tally: 68 Managers, 22 Coaches, 48 Players.

This is Los Angeles' 1st ejection of 2024, 5th in the NL West (SF 7; ARI, SD 6; COL 3; LAD 1).

This is Dave Roberts' 1st ejection since August 26, 2023 (Jordan Baker; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).3

This is Hunter Wendelstedt's 4th ejection of 2024, 1st since June 22 (Jesse Winker; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Philadelphia Phillies vs Los Angeles Dodgers, 8/7/24 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Wendelstedt ejects Roberts after obstruction in LA proves controversial

View the full article

[Velho]

We haven't discussed this one yet. What did you all think?

[ousafe]

In real time I had no hindrance without possession...so I had a relatively (I thought) easy out call there.

I think you have to talk yourself into an obstruction call on this one.

But hey, that's just my perhaps ignorant take. Happy to hear other, wiser takes.

[dumbdumb]

old days, 100% out all day/night long. now days you could make a case either way that is not 100%.

E management, which is not taking any heat, for not allowing this to go to replay and take the heat off calling umpire, just like play at plate and the set up at home by the catcher that does get to go to replay.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Not a fan of Hunter's game management here...admittedly, I don't know what Roberts said but, Hunter was too pre-emptive in my opinion...shades of the Boone ejection earlier in the season.

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

Ironically, in NFHS where this NEEDS a to be called, it would be missed 99% of the time.

[Tborze]

10 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Not a fan of Hunter's game management here...admittedly, I don't know what Roberts said but, Hunter was too pre-emptive in my opinion...shades of the Boone ejection earlier in the season.

~Dawg

Roberts was going out to save his player. Hunter told him he was walking away and not to follow him. Roberts did and got tossed. 
Thanks Jomboy!  

[dumbdumb]

good assist/save by the manager. that is part of the job and deliberate.

so, when everything goes to replay, all plays and pitches, lets see who/whom the players each manager decides are worth saving and which are not with a challenge system for everything,

or maybe with unlimited challenges, right or wrong, there would be no worry about playing favorites, and let all managers off the hook with a playing favorites mentality and not worry/feed the disgruntled player syndrome.

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, Tborze said:

Roberts was going out to save his player. Hunter told him he was walking away and not to follow him. Roberts did and got tossed. 
Thanks Jomboy!  

But since when can't a manager come out for an explanation of a call like this? Hunter is giving him a double-barreled stop sign saying, "No no no" before he even hears anything Roberts has to say? I do not like how he handled this, at all.

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

But since when can't a manager come out for an explanation of a call like this? Hunter is giving him a double-barreled stop sign saying, "No no no" before he even hears anything Roberts has to say? I do not like how he handled this, at all.

I totally agree.  I think we can all agree that a manager will be upset when he comes onto the field.  My question, therefore, is how the so-called experts (other than the lip-reading geniuses), are always so quick to declare that the manager is arguing vs. asking for an explanation of the call?

[JonnyCat]

8 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I think we can all agree that a manager will be upset when he comes onto the field.

Why does the manager have to be so upset when coming on to the field?

The question should be, why don't they come out calmly and ask for an explanation?

I agree that Hunter handled this poorly. But how is coming out with your hair on fire helping your cause?

Never understood why managers think they have to come out yelling instead of just asking calmly for an explanation. If they don't like the explanation, then it's their choice to escalate.

Baseball's culture needs to change.

[Velho]

I don't see the OBS on this one. I see how it feels like it could be OBS but I don't see the hinderance, particularly under OBR "in the act of fielding a throw" (and I say that as someone who regularly finds myself imagining OBS on anything close).

Methinks some of Hunter's histrionics may come from a little regret on having doth called it to quick.

 

On 8/9/2024 at 10:09 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Ironically, in NFHS where this NEEDS a to be called, it would be missed 99% of the time.

How much of that statement is because NFHS doesn't have "in the act of fielding" allowance in the rule?

[The Man in Blue]

[Velho]

Ok @The Man in Blue holding that NFHS frame of mind, look at the play after the OP

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Velho said:

Ok @The Man in Blue holding that NFHS frame of mind, look at the play after the OP

 

F3 Coming off the bag - HD 720p.mov 31.63 MB · 1 download  

 

 

I got nothing there.  Clean catch, tag.  Fielder was not set up in the runner's path, nor did he even move into the runner's path.  No obstruction of the runner (who should be in the lane, but we all know MLB extended the lane the other direction this year, so he is good in MLB).

Are you angling for something or just asking about this play?

In the OP, I have the fielder not only entering the runner's path, but setting up there before receiving the ball.

This is the slippery slope of the "catching the throw" provision . . . at what point do we enforce that exception?  This was a hot debate on another forum in application to catchers and positioning.  Some people there were arguing that a catcher wandering up the line toward a throw that has just left the outfielder's hand, but it is obviously off target.

[Velho]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Are you angling for something or just asking about this play?

I'm guess I'm angling that F3 @ 1B gets more latitude than other bases* so found the compare/contrast interesting.

Positioning of the two isn't much different. If BR had gone into a slide they'd be even more similar.

Thinking on it, maybe the fact BRs run through 1B lessens the OBS optic and gets different treatment.

 

* Not a hill I'm dying on but, as Bagehot said, “To illustrate a principle, you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.”  (Also known as "arguing just to argue". Or so my wife tells me).

 

[ousafe]

On 8/9/2024 at 10:09 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Ironically, in NFHS where this NEEDS a to be called, it would be missed 99% of the time.

Do you really have F5 denying access (all access) without possession? (2-22-3)

I don't. 

[The Man in Blue]

@Velho . . . maybe it is the angling of the cameras or seeing it in motion instead of a still shot.  In those stills, I agree they look similar.  Watch the plays and they are far from being identical though.  In the OP, the fielder is moving his entire body into the path between the runner and the base.  In the 1B play, I do not see him moving his body in the path, only the tag.

@ousafe . . . this is one of those areas that I will die on this hill.  The "ALL ACCESS" misconception created by NFHS through terribly written case plays and lazy interpretations is incorrect by rule.  Since you cite 2-22-3, here it is:

Nothing there says a little obstruction is OK.  It's like being pregnant, you are or you aren't.

So, let's say a fielder without the ball decides he is only going to block the 50% of the base that the runner is headed towards.  What has he done at that point?  2-22-1

 

If a runner is headed to the inside of the bag, and the fielder decides to drop his knee in front of that part of the bag and FORCE the runner to go somewhere else, what did he do?  I would say that is a pretty obvious HINDERS A RUNNER which also CHANGES THE PATTERN OF PLAY for the runner.

Yes, NFHS steps on its own . . . bat . . . with their case play 8.3.2.G (I am using the 2018 Kindle version) which people have horribly misinterpreted. 

The intent of the case play was to say that the act of being in front of the base in and of itself is not obstruction.  Notice it does NOT talk about any impact on the runner.  What it fails to clarify and what people don't bother to use their brains to decipher, is that 2-22-1 still applies.  This is NOT a license to block part of the bag without impunity.  It is saying that the act of blocking a portion is irrelevant if it does NOT hinder the runner.  A total blockage of the bag is obviously going to hinder the runner; a partial blockage may or may not, so you need to keep going in figuring this out.  (Do not count 300 dinosaurs and stop counting.)

The rule 8.3.2.G is referencing is the base award penalty for obstruction (in 2018) or base awards in general (expanded in the current book), not the definition or act of obstruction.  Why this case play is tied to this rule is . . . confounding.

We do NOT allow the fielder to dictate the path the runner must take.  Would you agree with that? 

Do we allow the fielder to stand in the way as the runner rounds the base and bumps shoulders?  No, we do not.  Use the same logic here and you will see what this case play is doing a really bad job of explaining.  

 

 

[ousafe]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

We do NOT allow the fielder to dictate the path the runner must take.  Would you agree with that?

What do you think about what 8.3.2.L has to say?

[The Man in Blue]

I think it is one of the multiple instances where the case book is blatantly wrong and in violation of the written rules.  

I would speculate it was one of those Hail Mary efforts to introduce a "in the process of catching the throw" clause when they could not get it actually inserted into the rule.  (Note it does specify "while taking the throw.")

As I said, I will die on this hill and I will NOT apply a very clear rule in the piss-poor manner 8.3.2.L suggests.  There is no piece of logic that can lead you from the rule book to that application. 

F6 standing in between second base and third base is not denying the runner access to third base and is allowing a path, but the runner has to change his path to get around him.  Are you allowing it?  

[ousafe]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Are you allowing it?

Nope, not allowing it. But I'm also not ignoring the case book when ruling on slides or dives into a base. Fwiw. Cheers!

[The Man in Blue]

I am not asking you to ignore it, I am asking you to explain how the rules actually support that case play.  (Hint: They don't, the case play is wrong.)  Or at least explain why you are not allowing F6 to force the runner into a different path when you are allowing it in other cases.

 

That is the difference in these two schools of thought. 

The book says so, so I'm done and don't need to think.

VS.

How do the rules actually get you from "(1) steal underpants" to "(3) profit"?

After all, we know these publications are always impeccably flawless.