Cardinals-Pirates obstruction

[johnnyg08]

6 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Asking @DR.PHIL.

Not even a real doctor. 

[umpstu]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

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". 

Good Carl reference. And I agree. It would be a sh**house play either way.

[MAUmpire]

Linking for completeness: 

 

[The Man in Blue]

On 4/10/2025 at 12:38 PM, Jay R. said:

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. 

 

Laughing at this because I am a Cardinals fan and I think they got it right.  

The runner is avoiding (what he believes) a fielder making a play.  The fact that the ball got away (and I don't think he could see that) does not change what the fielder was doing.  The runner's path would have been no different if the second fielder wasn't there, and the catcher would have just laid out for a pop fly that he misjudged.

There was no obstruction in the new base path.

Technically, I can't argue that this does not seem to meet the criteria . . . I just don't think that is what happened.

If you want to examine this from the NFHS perspective, ask yourself this: ground ball to F4, runner starts to deviate behind him.  As the runner is deviating (as required), F4 muffs the ball.  Are you calling obstruction?

Edited to add: Watched the CCS video.  Again, I can't argue that there aren't the technical requirements.  The difference I see from the Anaheim play is that you have two fielders side-by-side . . . in this play the two players are on top of one another and occupying the same space.  In my judgement, I do not believe the runner's actions would have been any different.  I know I am on the losing side of the letter of the law here . . . it is just a yucky call.

 

[Velho]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Technically, I can't argue that this does not seem to meet the criteria . . . I just don't think that is what happened.

But once the fielder is no longer fielding a batted ball (or a near deflection of a batted ball) but hinders  the runner, isn’t that OBS? 

[The Man in Blue]

11 minutes ago, Velho said:

But once the fielder is no longer fielding a batted ball (or a near deflection of a batted ball) but hinders  the runner, isn’t that OBS? 

IF that is why the runner deviates.  At what point does the runner deviate?  During the play being made or after?

Somebody may shoot some holes in this, but here is how I see it: just as a batter cannot disappear when a catcher makes a throw, a fielder cannot disappear when he misses a play.  The key is what happens next . . . think back to another Cardinals' play (why is it always the Cardinals?) in the playoffs when F5 was laying prone on the ground . . . and then lifted his legs up and obstructed the runner.  Was he fine laying prone because he was fielding a throw?  (I believe so, but maybe I'm wrong.)  It was the leg lift that caused it.

In this play, the runner WAS avoiding a fielder making a play.  Just because said player muffed the play doesn't mean he vanishes and leaves a clear path.  The runner was not avoiding a fielder who was just in the way.  The clear rules we have for protection provide for him making a second play . . . but that isn't what we have here.  The rules don't give us a clear point when the protection ends.  So I am left asking, "Why did the runner deviate?"  My answer keeps coming back to me as "To avoid the fielder making a play."  "Was there something the fielder did or could have done to get out of there?"  I keep coming back to "no."

Like I said, you can hang your hat on the second fielder theory (Watch the runner . . . in, and to the left.  In and to the left.  In and to the left.) and I really can't poke holes in that technically.  In this case, I just don't feel that the runner deviated to avoid the second fielder but not the first.

Again, if we are talking timing, ask yourself how you are treating F4 who ham-hands a ground ball.  The runner deviated to avoid him making the play, but then he didn't make the play.  Obstruction?

[Replacematt]

Just now, The Man in Blue said:

IF that is why the runner deviates.  At what point does the runner deviate?  During the play being made or after?

Somebody may shoot some holes in this, but here is how I see it: just as a batter cannot disappear when a catcher makes a throw, a fielder cannot disappear when he misses a play.  The key is what happens next . . . think back to another Cardinals' play (why is it always the Cardinals?) in the playoffs when F5 was laying prone on the ground . . . and then lifted his legs up and obstructed the runner.  Was he fine laying prone because he was fielding a throw?  (I believe so, but maybe I'm wrong.)  It was the leg lift that caused it.

In this play, the runner WAS avoiding a fielder making a play.  Just because said player muffed the play doesn't mean he vanishes and leaves a clear path.  The runner was not avoiding a fielder who was just in the way.  The clear rules we have for protection provide for him making a second play . . . but that isn't what we have here.  The rules don't give us a clear point when the protection ends.  So I am left asking, "Why did the runner deviate?"  My answer keeps coming back to me as "To avoid the fielder making a play."  "Was there something the fielder did or could have done to get out of there?"  I keep coming back to "no."

Like I said, you can hang your hat on the second fielder theory (Watch the runner . . . in, and to the left.  In and to the left.  In and to the left.) and I really can't poke holes in that technically.  In this case, I just don't feel that the runner deviated to avoid the second fielder but not the first.

It doesn't matter that someone can't instantaneously disappear.

Once they are no longer a protected fielder (which means that once they are not the sole fielder that has both an opportunity to field it and the best opportunity,) they cannot hinder the runner. In this case, whoever was the protected fielder (I'd have gone with F3) was no longer it once they crashed and the ball bounded away from them, switching the protection to someone else. This moment was before the runner had to deviate, which means it is OBS.

So, no, the runner was NOT avoiding a fielder making a play. That fielder was closer to home.

Your question as to if the fielder could have gotten out of there is irrelevant to officiating this play.

[Jay R.]

1) The runner is coming in clearly in foul territory. In this screen grab the ball is somewhere between the fielders on the ground. I guess here I can see your point that the fielders are effectively blocking the same area, one has the ball, so... fine. Agree to disagree, but I see your point.

2) By here the runner has already been forced to deviate by what he might think is a fielder with a ball. That said, by around here he has to realize that it's loose and he's now trying to score. At this point no one has the ball, and there are three fielders between him and the plate.

3) In this screen grab F5 still doesn't have the ball but a portion of him (his right arm and maybe his right leg) are in the runner's new path to the plate.

Granted that this is extremely tough to call in real time, especially as PU watching for catch/no and fair/foul, but I don't think they got it right.

[The Man in Blue]

16 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

It doesn't matter that someone can't instantaneously disappear.

Once they are no longer a protected fielder (which means that once they are not the sole fielder that has both an opportunity to field it and the best opportunity,) they cannot hinder the runner. In this case, whoever was the protected fielder (I'd have gone with F3) was no longer it once they crashed and the ball bounded away from them, switching the protection to someone else. This moment was before the runner had to deviate, which means it is OBS.

So, no, the runner was NOT avoiding a fielder making a play. That fielder was closer to home.

Your question as to if the fielder could have gotten out of there is irrelevant to officiating this play.

 

Again, I am willing to be wrong.  This is where I am saying there is an issue.  OBR says of a fielder continuing to lay on the ground "he very likely obstructed the runner" (pg. 75 in the 2024 book) . . . not he DID obstruct the runner.  In that same section it does say he is no longer protected once he misses the play.  I interpret that to mean he cannot make another action (including skipping an opportunity to move), not that it is instantly applicable when nothing else changed. 

I will ask for the third time . . . R1 is deviating to avoid F4 fielding a ground ball.  F4 boots it.  Is that now obstruction because the runner deviated?

We disagree on that second bolded point.  Yes, the ball is away before he comes upon them, but his deviation had begun before that, IMO.

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Again, I am willing to be wrong.  This is where I am saying there is an issue.  OBR says of a fielder continuing to lay on the ground "he very likely obstructed the runner" (pg. 75 in the 2024 book) . . . not he DID obstruct the runner.  In that same section it does say he is no longer protected once he misses the play.  I interpret that to mean he cannot make another action (including skipping an opportunity to move), not that it is instantly applicable when nothing else changed. 

I will ask for the third time . . . R1 is deviating to avoid F4 fielding a ground ball.  F4 boots it.  Is that now obstruction because the runner deviated?

We disagree on that second bolded point.  Yes, the ball is away before he comes upon them, but his deviation had begun before that, IMO.

They use that verbiage to avoid a (falsifiable) generalization.

The answer to your question is no, as long as the hindrance occurred while F4 was protected.

As you can see from the second screen capture in the post just above this, the runner deviated after the initial protected fielder lost protection.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I will ask for the third time . . . R1 is deviating to avoid F4 fielding a ground ball.  F4 boots it.  Is that now obstruction because the runner deviated?

Change the scenario: F4 fielding a ground ball near 2B in R1's base path, R1 doesn't deviate because F4 is 30+ feet away, ball goes through F4's legs, F4 stays stationary rethinking his life choices and hinders R1 getting to 2B.

F4 was protected to attempt the play but is no longer protected by the time he hinders R1.  OBS or no?

 

Alternate play, same ground ball near 2B, F6 charges into R1's basepath, a) fields the ball and is mowed over by R1, b) whiffs the ball and one step later collides into R1

a) not OBS. It's  an out on the "tag" or INT (we'll defer that conversation for now though)

b) OBS?