MLB Ejection 038 - Jordan Baker (2; Matt Quatraro)

[Lindsay]

2B Umpire Jordan Baker ejected Royals manager Matt Quatraro (out/non-obstruction call; QOCY) in the top of the 7th inning of the #Royals-#Giants game. With one out and one on and Michael Massey at bat, Giants pitcher Robbie Ray threw to first baseman Casey Schmitt, who threw to shortstop Willy Adames to pick off Royals baserunner R1 Dairon Blanco, attempting to steal second base. Replays indicate Adames tagged Blanco prior to the runner's arrival at second base and without illegally blocking the runner's access to the base (act of fielding exception), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the game was tied, 0-0. The Royals ultimately won the contest, 3-1.

 

This is Jordan Baker (71)'s 2nd ejection of 2025.

*Official Baseball Rules Definition: "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."

Related Ejection: E77 - Paul Clemons (2; Matt Quatraro; QOC = Y [Obstruction No-Call]) (6/13/24).

This is the 38th ejection of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 19th manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 19 Managers, 10 Coaches, 9 Players.

This is Kansas City's 2nd ejection of 2025, 1st in the AL Central (CWS, KC, MIN 2; CLE, DET 0).

This is Matt Quatraro's 1st ejection since June 27, 2024 (Tripp Gibson; QOC = Y [Base Path]).

This is Jordan Baker's 2nd ejection of 2025, 1st since May 17 (Jeff Banister; QOC = Y [Pitch Clock]).

Wrap: Kansas City Royals vs San Francisco Giants, 5/19/25 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Quatraro ejected arguing act-of-fielding obstruction no-call for 2nd year in a row

View the full article

[Velho]

At what levels is this OBS?

[grayhawk]

33 minutes ago, Velho said:

At what levels is this OBS?

It's not OBS in NCAA.

[Velho]

16 hours ago, grayhawk said:

It's not OBS in NCAA.

Makes sense given same "act of fielding" provison as OBR:

2-55 OBSTRUCTION

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. Note: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so they must occupy their position to receive the ball, the fielder may be considered to be “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, they can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes them. If the fielder continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, they very likely have obstructed the runner.

[BLWizzRanger]

19 minutes ago, Velho said:

Note: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so they must occupy their position to receive the ball, the fielder may be considered to be “in the act of fielding a ball.”

I hate this note.  I had a play at home on a single to LF.  The F2 sets up out in front of the plate.  Throw takes him across the R2's basepath (about 3 or 4 steps total), the R2 checks up slightly, the catch and tag (on the right shin) was almost immediate in tandem.   My judgement was that the movement by F2 obstructed the R2 and awarded him home. And, an afterthought was that the F2 didn't need to cross the basepath, he could have gone up the baseline and caught the ball and made the tag.

HTBT, of course. 

But was the ball's flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder to be considered 'in the act of fielding the ball'?  Who the heck knows?

[SeeingEyeDog]

I also happen to think the "parallax view" makes this look like he is "blocking the bag" (not OBS of course as explained in the video) so, he's also giving him the bag in my judgement...but, it's a deceptive camera angle that causes it to look like he's in a different place then where he actually is...naturally, U2 has a great look at this.

~Dawg

[UMP45]

Here are my two cents. I don't care. This is MLB. What happens at that level doesn't really affect me. In my opinion we have too many umpires thinking like players/coaches. Learn the rule. Don't let the coaches sway you unless it is warranted. Know the rule, know the spirit of the rule, and  know how to apply it.

[Velho]

22 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

but, it's a deceptive camera angle that causes it to look like he's in a different place then where he actually is

Exceptional point Dawg. And that, more than the below helps OP make sense to me (still not reviewable though 🙄)

32 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

But was the ball's flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder to be considered 'in the act of fielding the ball'?  Who the heck knows?

OP is not the most egregious (and is barely so) but the fielder is dropping down ahead of the throw trying to block the runner. Stretches credulity of 'act of fielding' imo. Same as leaning into HBP, players know what they are doing much more than largely given credit for, i.e. 'where else is he supposed to go'? F2's have put this lie to rest.

https://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=45244491

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Grammatical suggestion for the rule makers: change "in the act of fielding" to "as part of the act of fielding."  For example, you may be dropping the knee to lower yourself to catch a throw that is low . . . as opposed to dropping the knee while catching the ball up high and coming back with a tag.  Reasonably necessary in the former, unnecessary in the latter.