NJ/CT "obstruction" call

[Richvee]

I do not have access to a clip, but I'm sure some saw it. Top 7, 2nd and 3rd, wild pitch, R3 scores, R2 heading into 3B is obstructed by R5, and U3 calls it. 3B coach sees this, sends R2 home, and he's out by a country mile. Next thing I see is R2 put back at 3B... and no out (or run) recorded?? Anyone else see this? Anyone have an explanation?

[Coach Carl]

I went and found it on ESPN.  I don't have an obvious explanation.  That looks protestable to me.  Just don't listen to the announcer.  "Free chance at the next base", ugh.

[Velho]

"If OBS hadn't happened I wouldn't have said 'That's Obstruction' which wouldn't have made the coach/runner think they had a free pass, so they wouldn't have gone and gotten out. Ipso facto, if there had been no Obstruction, the runner would have stayed on third." ?

🤦‍♂️

Another example of "if the coach knew the rule".

Protest would all depend on what explanation and words the umpire used (though unclear what words would avoid a protest on this one).

 

[Richvee]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

"If OBS hadn't happened I wouldn't have said 'That's Obstruction' which wouldn't have made the coach/runner think they had a free pass, so they wouldn't have gone and gotten out. Ipso facto, if there had been no Obstruction, the runner would have stayed on third." ?

🤦‍♂️

Another example of "if the coach knew the rule".

Protest would all depend on what explanation and words the umpire used (though unclear what words would avoid a protest on this one).

 

That's on the coach for not knowing the rule. We can't "let him off the hook" and let his runner go back to 3B because the coach didn't know the rule. I was surprised NJ didn't make a bigger issue out of it. It was a HUGE (no)call....Dare I say MSU call? 

[Velho]

4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

That's on the coach for not knowing the rule. We can't "let him off the hook" and let his runner go back to 3B because the coach didn't know the rule.

In case it wasn't clear - that was my supposition of the gymnastics / misunderstanding to putting runner on 3rd.

Runner should have been out

(and why using a bit of a delayed OBS call (like Fed umpires do) can be worthwhile in this type of play)

[Coach Carl]

Thinking about it a little more, maybe the coach convinced the umpire that he said or did something to make them think that he was awarding the runner home (though nothing like that is apparent from the video).  

 

[jimurrayalterego]

20 minutes ago, Velho said:

 

(and why using a bit of a delayed OBS call (like Fed umpires do) can be worthwhile in this type of play)

We do point it in FED with a subdued verbal. The arm out to the side has gone away. It's up to the players and coach to know how it's enforced. A few MLB clips should have everyone knowing what not to do.

[Velho]

18 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

41 minutes ago, Velho said:

(and why using a bit of a delayed OBS call (like Fed umpires do) can be worthwhile in this type of play)

We do point it in FED with a subdued verbal. The arm out to the side has gone away. It's up to the players and coach to know how it's enforced.

Can you clarify what you mean?

If you point it you're committed to a forward base award, yeah?

Do you award it or wait for the OT to notice you called it and ask for the award?

[Kevin_K]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

That's on the coach for not knowing the rule. We can't "let him off the hook" and let his runner go back to 3B because the coach didn't know the rule. I was surprised NJ didn't make a bigger issue out of it. It was a HUGE (no)call....Dare I say MSU call? 

That's on the NJ coach for not knowing the rule as well isn't it?

[Richvee]

Just now, Kevin_K said:

That's on the NJ coach for not knowing the rule as well isn't it?

Yup. 

[BigBlue4u]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

That's on the coach for not knowing the rule. We can't "let him off the hook" and let his runner go back to 3B because the coach didn't know the rule.

Velho,

Better if you stated the coach apparently didn't know the rule.  Maybe he did know the rule and was trying to "buy" a call.  Another thing is the big problem with watching a video replay.  We can see what's being done, but we often can't hear what's being said. 

[Velho]

31 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

2 hours ago, Velho said:

That's on the coach for not knowing the rule. We can't "let him off the hook" and let his runner go back to 3B because the coach didn't know the rule.

Velho,

Better if you stated the coach apparently didn't know the rule.  Maybe he did know the rule and was trying to "buy" a call.  Another thing is the big problem with watching a video replay.  We can see what's being done, but we often can't hear what's being said. 

Great points and I agree - though I didn't say that, it was  @Richvee   

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

We do point it in FED with a subdued verbal. The arm out to the side has gone away. It's up to the players and coach to know how it's enforced. A few MLB clips should have everyone knowing what not to do.

All codes point it when IT happens. There might or might not be an immediate verbal. If you point it you have to enforce it. Type 1 in OBR and NCAA and any OBS in FED has you award at least 1 base. We have had threads here where we agree to be sure you have OBS, as per the definition, before you commit to point.

[The Man in Blue]

Jump to 12:56 . . . 

 

If the obstruction occurred coming in to 3rd base (can't tell in the video, but the timing looks that way), then I have Type 2 (LL uses OBR, right?).

Nullifying the obstruction would have him at 3rd base (not home). 

However, if 3rd base is the award, the out should stand since he chose to advance past the award.

 

The only thing I have is they felt the umpire was unclear in the call and caused the runner to go, so they rectified that perceived problem (I hesitate to call it an error).

 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

48 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Jump to 12:56 . . . 

 

 

The only thing I have is they felt the umpire was unclear in the call and caused the runner to go, so they rectified that perceived problem (I hesitate to call it an error).

 

 

Thanks for finding this video. Nothing was unclear. There was no problem to rectify. LL has not changed from older OBR so it was Type B with the same "at risk" comment. LL probably wants to disappear how R2 was put back on 3B after being put out at HP. Ump conference or gather at the backstop with the protest crew? 

[Velho]

That highlight clipped it tight. Try this full view.

[Velho]

16 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Ump conference or gather at the backstop with the protest crew? 

No. U3 and coach talked. That's it. Next pitch followed shortly after the highlights (so you all didn't get to hear that "There is nothing to lose [for offense] once obstruction is called"). [That is a near direct quote from Kyle Peterson]

[maven]

Just so folks are clear on the rule: from the description, it seems that U3 ruled that F5 obstructed R2 coming into 3B. That's Type 2 (formerly B) OBS, the penalty for which is to protect the runner to the base he would have attained without the hindrance.

Runners who advance beyond the awarded base (the ball remains live, to prevent the defense gaining an unfair advantage through their infraction) are liable to be put out, which also seems to have happened here.

We don't know (a) the base U3 awarded, (b) what U3 said, or (c) what the base coach said. If the base coach told his runner to advance after the OBS call (with or without thinking it was somehow a "free" advance with no liability to be put out), then that's on the coach. The out should stand.

But it's also possible that U3 initially protected the runner to HP, which would have nullified the out there. Given how close the play was at HP, he might have changed his judgment of the protected base after the play, in which case putting the runner back to 3B would be correct under the "changed judgment call" provision.

I have no idea whether any of that happened, and I don't contend that it did. But it's one way the umpires might have had a leg to stand on.

It's not a strong leg: the assessment of the protected base is not made "live," during play. We generally need to see what else happened to have a proper judgment of where the runner would have advanced without the hindrance. But it's something more than just "MSU."

[Velho]

12 hours ago, Velho said:

That highlight clipped it tight. Try this full view.

Youtube link in case that video is being wonky for anyone else (it is for me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPN2Xs02qAc

[umpstu]

Almost looks like he called the obstruction after he had obtained 3rd base. Or maybe he verbalized it before the bag but the point came afterwards.

[MadMax]

16 minutes ago, umpstu said:

Almost looks like he called the obstruction after he had obtained 3rd base.

He did, because that’s where the “~obstruction~” 👻 occurred. It was not “before the bag” (as others are claiming). The contact occurs _after_ 3B, as the far-too-aggressive R2 rounds 3B and (tries to) do those “picture steps” towards HP. He runs right into the back of F5. 

Where’s the ball, in all of this? Securely in F2’s mitt, 60 (much too short!) feet away at HP! Where’s he (R2) going to go?!

This is a (classic) case of an (amateur) umpire seeing something and having to call something. As soon as he called that something, you can see 3BC gesturing R2 to go score, because he was (supposedly, or allegedly) going to be awarded HP anyway. 

I think this exact play – not in other contexts, but in this specific environment and game – is the best “Solomon’s Judgement” that LLWS could hope for. If he had called Time to score R2, you’d have had an interminable discussion with LL’s PTB regarding the rules (and the types of OBS); conversely, if he had called it, and let the (tag) Out stand, then there’s another interminable “protest” and appeal to TPTB. 
 

🤔 

 

Best to call “That’s nothing”! 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Best to call “That’s nothing”!

But he didn’t. Can’t put the toothpaste back on the tube. 

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

Best to call “That’s nothing”! 

I can see that in Fed where you would have to award the runner home, but not in OBR or NCAA where you can call the obstruction but not have to make that award. 

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

Youtube link in case that video is being wonky for anyone else (it is for me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPN2Xs02qAc

 

Thank you!  Yes, you can see the obstruction occurs when the runner leaves the bag "headed home" (not really).

Type 2 -- nullify the obstruction . . . he wasn't scoring, so place him back on third base.  He didn't advance beyond the awarded base, so we can't fall back on that provision.

[jimurrayalterego]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Thank you!  Yes, you can see the obstruction occurs when the runner leaves the bag "headed home" (not really).

Type 2 -- nullify the obstruction . . . he wasn't scoring, so place him back on third base.  He didn't advance beyond the awarded base, so we can't fall back on that provision.

There was no awarded base. He's out.