Cardinals-Pirates obstruction

[MAUmpire]

Crazy play from today — should this be obstruction? I think so…

 

also, should they check for a gas leak at PNC park? Seems like it’s always the Pirates…

[jimurrayalterego]

55 minutes ago, MAUmpire said:

Crazy play from today — should this be obstruction? I think so…

 

also, should they check for a gas leak at PNC park? Seems like it’s always the Pirates…

Marmol started to come out but turned around. I don't know if PU was thinking this quick but R2 deviated voluntarily as required around the protected fielder. He then was unobstructed from that location. 

[umpstu]

2 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Marmol started to come out but turned around. I don't know if PU was thinking this quick but R2 deviated voluntarily as required around the protected fielder. He then was unobstructed from that location. 

He deviated when they were on the ground and so was the ball. At the 7 second point that ball was nowhere near the protected fielders and was almost to the plate.  This is when his deviation started. I will admit I'm a die hard Cardinals fan, but not when watching this. I can't see how this wasn't obstruction. Still what is going on with Roycroft?

[grayhawk]

I have obstruction. When the runner deviated his path, neither fielder was in the act of fielding the ball and neither would be protected at that point. The ball was misplayed and was not in their immediate reach. That said, PU has a whole lot going on in a small area in a short period of time. This is a bastard play.

[jimurrayalterego]

3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I have obstruction. When the runner deviated his path, neither fielder was in the act of fielding the ball and neither would be protected at that point. The ball was misplayed and was not in their immediate reach. That said, PU has a whole lot going on in a small area in a short period of time. This is a bastard play.

 

21 minutes ago, umpstu said:

He deviated when they were on the ground and so was the ball. At the 7 second point that ball was nowhere near the protected fielders and was almost to the plate.  This is when his deviation started. I will admit I'm a die hard Cardinals fan, but not when watching this. I can't see how this wasn't obstruction. Still what is going on with Roycroft?

I think you are right. The runner might not have seen the ball on the ground and thought he was deviating around the protected fielder but I don't think we care about his motivation when he is obstructed.

[Velho]

35 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Marmol started to come out but turned around.

The Managers will drop curses and get ejected at the drop of a hat on judgement calls they have no good information on but won't come out to ask simple rules based questions that they could easily win when a run is at stake? I don't get it.

 

Separately, based on similar plays I've called OBS in LL, maybe PU just wanted to avoid the mind wrenching conversation with the DHC.  

[johnnyg08]

Here are both feeds with some additional angles. I think this is obstruction, but I think PU was fixed on the baseball and did not look up to see the hinderance. (understandable)

 

[LouisB]

MLB will probably issue an "apology" for the ump missing the obstruction call.  Too little, too late!

[noumpere]

Pretty clearly OBS.  A fielder has a (nearly) absolute rule to field a batted ball, but once he misses it, he has a (nearly) absolute obligation to get out of the way.

[834k3r]

Cue the conversation with the DHC "obstruction doesn't have to be intentional, coach."

[Richvee]

18 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Marmol started to come out but turned around. I don't know if PU was thinking this quick but R2 deviated voluntarily as required around the protected fielder. He then was unobstructed from that location. 

But there were two fielders there.... one's protected. The other is obstructing. Even if he deviated before the ball got there. Plus, if you want to say he deviated prior, then F5 is obstructing. 

[Richvee]

18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I have obstruction. When the runner deviated his path, neither fielder was in the act of fielding the ball and neither would be protected at that point. The ball was misplayed and was not in their immediate reach. That said, PU has a whole lot going on in a small area in a short period of time. This is a bastard play.

Can U3 grab this? 

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Richvee said:

Can U3 grab this? 

 Absolutely. Remember PU calling obstruction at third base in the World Series from behind the plate?

[jimurrayalterego]

29 minutes ago, Richvee said:

But there were two fielders there.... one's protected. The other is obstructing. Even if he deviated before the ball got there. Plus, if you want to say he deviated prior, then F5 is obstructing. 

I’ve bought into OBS but from his deviation point I don’t think F5 obstructed him from HP. The OP is clear. 2 fielders without the ball obstructed him. But what would we have if the timing and outcome was different? R3 running down the line, protected fielder and unprotected fielder drift at last minute to a 3 way crash. Ball drops and is picked up by someone who tags R3. 

[Jay R.]

Pirates fan here, and I agree with @Richvee. As soon as I saw it, I thought, "Whichever fielder is unprotected is obstructing the runner's way to the plate."

To say nothing of the runner having to run around two fielders without the ball after it landed. 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I’ve bought into OBS but from his deviation point I don’t think F5 obstructed him from HP. The OP is clear. 2 fielders without the ball obstructed him. But what would we have if the timing and outcome was different? R3 running down the line, protected fielder and unprotected fielder drift at last minute to a 3 way crash. Ball drops and is picked up by someone who tags R3. 

I would think because we have 2 or 3 fielders there, we have to get obstruction. Normally, a fielder drifting for a pop up is protected, even if the runner veers to avoid him, and the fielder drifts into the runners path.. The fielder is still protected. But 2 or 3 fielders drifting into the path? 1 or 2 of them have to be obstructing, no?  

[Replacematt]

10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I would think because we have 2 or 3 fielders there, we have to get obstruction. Normally, a fielder drifting for a pop up is protected, even if the runner veers to avoid him, and the fielder drifts into the runners path.. The fielder is still protected. But 2 or 3 fielders drifting into the path? 1 or 2 of them have to be obstructing, no?  

Not necessarily. 

If the runner isn't hindered by the unprotected fielders additionally to what they are hindered by the protected fielder, we have nothing.

[MAUmpire]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I’ve bought into OBS but from his deviation point I don’t think F5 obstructed him from HP. The OP is clear. 2 fielders without the ball obstructed him. But what would we have if the timing and outcome was different? R3 running down the line, protected fielder and unprotected fielder drift at last minute to a 3 way crash. Ball drops and is picked up by someone who tags R3. 

If it’s truly a three way crash or contact with the protected fielder first with the ball still in the air…interference on R3? If R3 makes contact with the unprotected fielder first…obstruction? 

I’ve been thinking about the additional prescience of the unprotected fielder under the protected fielder (lol). I’m inclined to agree with @Replacematt — I don’t think the conclusion is there has to be obstruction if both fielders are occupying the same place, I think to truly protect the correct fielder it has to be interference instead? (I’m imagining the second fielder inside the protected fielder’s “force field”)

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Not necessarily. 

If the runner isn't hindered by the unprotected fielders additionally to what they are hindered by the protected fielder, we have nothing.

Agree, but we're definitely getting into "I have to see it to tell you what I have" territory

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

Agree, but we're definitely getting into "I have to see it to tell you what I have" territory

In my postulated play and the actual OP we are getting into/got into Carl Childress territory: "I hope this doesn't happen in your game". 

[BigBlue4u]

10 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Absolutely. Remember PU calling obstruction at third base in the World Series from behind the plate?

Actually, for the record, that's not correct.  Check this video.  At 12 seconds, you'll see third base umpire Jim Joyce point to third base to indicate obstruction.  Dana Demuth, the plate umpire only indicated why he called the runner safe at home, by pointing to third base.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Actually, for the record, that's not correct.  Check this video.  At 12 seconds, you'll see third base umpire Jim Joyce point to third base to indicate obstruction.  Dana Demuth, the plate umpire only indicated why he called the runner safe at home, by pointing to third base.

 

And later I think Dana admitted that that was the wrong mechanic. He should have called time if he or U3 would have awarded HP since the obstructed type 2 runner was tagged before his protected base. If Dana didn't know what Joyce would protect the runner to he should have called the out and let Joyce call the OBS and award. 

[johnnyg08]

This really isn't a HTBT play. 

It's obstruction. In fact, it's pretty close to textbook obstruction. 

PU didn't see it because he was focused on the status of the ball. (Correctly btw) 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

25 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

This really isn't a HTBT play. 

It's obstruction. In fact, it's pretty close to textbook obstruction. 

PU didn't see it because he was focused on the status of the ball. (Correctly btw) 

 

What is this that you are referring to? The OP that no one has said was HTBT or I think the HTBT refers to my postulated play. Both my and the OP plays are CC plays with his hope. Why don't people read and comprehend the whole effin thread and post appropriately with how the thread has evolved. Asking @DR.PHIL.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Actually, for the record, that's not correct.  Check this video.  At 12 seconds, you'll see third base umpire Jim Joyce point to third base to indicate obstruction.  Dana Demuth, the plate umpire only indicated why he called the runner safe at home, by pointing to third base.

And if you watch at 1:44 and 1:54, DeMuth is pointing at the obstruction while the play is in progress. It's just as I remembered it.