LLWS Texas vs Connecticut, Obstruction?

[Umpy]

Play in the top of the 5th inning a Connecticut runner is initially called safe diving back to 3rd and upon review it is overturned to an out.  In the extensive replays they show it looks like the fielder had his foot and leg completely blocking the base before he had the ball in his glove.  I would have called this obstruction since he was blocking the path to the base before he had the ball.  Would this be overumpiring on my part?

(video should be time stamped to the right spot, but if its not the play happens at 8:42)

 

[BLWizzRanger]

Did he get called out for a heads first slide? I thought in another game, a player did and was called out for that. I don't know the intricacies of LL rules though.

[JSam21]

43 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Did he get called out for a heads first slide? I thought in another game, a player did and was called out for that. I don't know the intricacies of LL rules though.

They are allowed to come back to the base head first, they are not allowed to advance to the base head first. 

[grayhawk]

I don't have obstruction there. The runner was not impeded by the fielder before he had possession. The fielder gains possession at this moment. How could the runner have been impeded prior to this when he's just initiating his dive back to the base?

[LC Ump]

The call on the field that went to review was out/safe at 3b. U3 made the safe call but it was overturned by the replay officials.

A head first slide returning to a base in LL is legal, so that was not in question (although whether or not a slide is head first IS reviewable as the call at the end of first CT/NJ game in the regional shows.)

Obstruction is not reviewable, however, so we're left with U3's judgement here. The LL rule prohibits blocking the base without the ball but like other codes also specifies that the act must impede the runner. Don't see that there was any "impediment" until after F5 had the ball.

[jimurrayalterego]

Just now, LC Ump said:

The call on the field that went to review was out/safe at 3b. U3 made the safe call but it was overturned by the replay officials.

A head first slide returning to a base in LL is legal, so that was not in question (although whether or not a slide is head first IS reviewable as the call at the end of first CT/NJ game in the regional shows.)

Obstruction is not reviewable, however, so we're left with U3's judgement here. The LL rule prohibits blocking the base without the ball but like other codes also specifies that the act must impede the runner. Don't see that there was any "impediment" until after F5 had the ball.

Would it be OBS this year in MLB?

[grayhawk]

19 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Would it be OBS this year in MLB?

Maybe right after the POE, but not once they got their heads screwed on straight again.

[Velho]

48 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't have obstruction there. The runner was not impeded by the fielder before he had possession. The fielder gains possession at this moment. How could the runner have been impeded prior to this when he's just initiating his dive back to the base?

How do we think about a position taken before having the ball* that gives the fielder an advantage once they've caught the ball? I'm thinking about F2 setup at HP as the MLB example.

* Remember: LL, like HS, has no "in the act of fielding a throw provision"

[grayhawk]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

How do we think about a position taken before having the ball* that gives the fielder an advantage once they've caught the ball? I'm thinking about F2 setup at HP as the MLB example.

* Remember: LL, like HS, has no "in the act of fielding a throw provision"

I don't care where the fielder is setup before he has possession if the runner is in no way hindered or impeded. If F2 is completely blocking the plate when R2 rounds 3B, do we care? Of course not. So why should we care if he's closer to the plate but still not impeded? Remember those ridiculous obstruction calls in the WCWS? We certainly don't want baseball to enter that domain.

[ArchAngel72]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I don't care where the fielder is setup before he has possession if the runner is in no way hindered or impeded. If F2 is completely blocking the plate when R2 rounds 3B, do we care? Of course not. So why should we care if he's closer to the plate but still not impeded? Remember those ridiculous obstruction calls in the WCWS? We certainly don't want baseball to enter that domain.

One could argue if F2 is standing blocking the plate a runner would have to change his running speed or direction to the plate in order to get to it.  Even if he moves out of the way during getting the ball the runner has been impeded.

I would also argue that the runner diving back to the back was impeded upon as when he initiated his dive back to the bag He was impeded and then bashed into the foot and worked around it.  Had the foot not been there he would have been safe and I do not thing F5 would have been able to move to block the bag once he got the ball.

 

To me (with replay) this is still obstruction

 

 

 

[grayhawk]

35 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

One could argue if F2 is standing blocking the plate a runner would have to change his running speed or direction to the plate in order to get to it. 

But you see, we need actual evidence that any of this happened. If we do have actual visual evidence of hinderance, then let's definitely make the call. Absent that evidence, we've got a legal play.

 

37 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I would also argue that the runner diving back to the back was impeded upon as when he initiated his dive back to the bag

What evidence do you have that he was impeded before F5 possessed the ball? He was diving back to the bag and made no move to get around the fielder until after the fielder had the ball.

 

37 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

He was impeded and then bashed into the foot and worked around it. 

All of this happened after F5 got possession. 
 

42 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I do not thing F5 would have been able to move to block the bag once he got the ball.

Irrelevant. He did have the ball when the runner arrived and tried to get around his foot. 

[LC Ump]

23 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

But you see, we need actual evidence that any of this happened. If we do have actual visual evidence of hinderance, then let's definitely make the call. Absent that evidence, we've got a legal play.

 

What evidence do you have that he was impeded before F5 possessed the ball? He was diving back to the bag and made no move to get around the fielder until after the fielder had the ball.

 

All of this happened after F5 got possession. 
 

Irrelevant. He did have the ball when the runner arrived and tried to get around his foot. 

And all of what grayhawk says is exactly how LL tournament umpires have been instructed/trained to judge obstruction this year.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I don't care where the fielder is setup before he has possession if the runner is in no way hindered or impeded. If F2 is completely blocking the plate when R2 rounds 3B, do we care? Of course not. So why should we care if he's closer to the plate but still not impeded? Remember those ridiculous obstruction calls in the WCWS? We certainly don't want baseball to enter that domain.

Not so fast if you are talking MLB.  MLB Rule 6.01 (h) (2) Note:  "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score.  The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand."

Here is the cause ce'le'bre to illustrate:   CIN@MIA Redmond ejected after arguing a horrible call (overturned in 8th)

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

Not so fast if you are talking MLB.  MLB Rule 6.01 (h) (2) Note:  "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score.  The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand."

Here is the cause ce'le'bre to illustrate:   CIN@MIA Redmond ejected after arguing a horrible call (overturned in 8th)

That was when the rule and its interpretation was in its infancy. I don't see that call being overturned today.

[Velho]

13 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

That was when the rule and its interpretation was in its infancy. I don't see that call being overturned today.

Possibly. It is on the edge of what's getting called OBS as recently as 2022 (when I quit tracking it closely).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPH5ar_ozoE

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Possibly. It is on the edge of what's getting called OBS as recently as 2022 (when I quit tracking it closely).

I hope they've gotten rid of that insanity by now.

[The Man in Blue]

A few add on thoughts . . . 

We are now lumping different two concepts under obstruction:

• Hinder/impede
• Blocking

These two, while the penalty may be same, really need to be distinguished when discussing them.  It is very possible to technically block without hindering/impeding because . . . 

There is a timing element that is completely left out of the rulebook, but needs to become an essential piece to be considered and discussed.  This play is a great example.  The fielder was definitely blocking before he had the ball, but did that have any impact on the runner?

This one is messy.  When the runner contacts the fielder's foot, the fielder has the ball.  When the runner started his slide, the fielder did not have the ball.  The fielder's foot did not move.  It seems the fielder missed the initial tag and was able to get a secondary tag because of his foot blocking the runner.  

I know we are going to parse the language, and by the technical letter it may not seem to be obstruction, but if you work it in reverse . . . it seems to me it should be.

Fielder was illegal --> runner started slide --> fielder received ball --> runner did not alter course --> fielder did not change from illegal position --> before tag, runner impacts fielder --> fielder is able to make the (secondary) tag for that reason

[Velho]

52 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

4 hours ago, Velho said:

Possibly. It is on the edge of what's getting called OBS as recently as 2022 (when I quit tracking it closely).

I hope they've gotten rid of that insanity by now.

Not clear that it has.

While there have been no F2 violations this year (I just watched every Replay for the Collision Rule, about 24 occurrences), and, while no F2 was found in violation, almost every F2 setup and action (setup inside HP/3B line and doing swipes vs hockey goalie slide) would have been fine even during the peak of OBS mania. Only a handful of plays were debatable imo even throws from a drawn in fielder where the rules give F2 much more latitude they are mostly inside and swiping.

 

[Velho]

10 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Fielder was illegal --> runner started slide --> fielder received ball --> runner did not alter course --> fielder did not change from illegal position --> before tag, runner impacts fielder --> fielder is able to make the (secondary) tag for that reason

This is the rationale MLB uses at HP Collision (and what I see F2s have adapted to as noted above).

[The Man in Blue]

My thought boils down to: you cannot set up illegally anticipating that you will be legal in that position.

I would say that is in spirit with the intent of the rule. Once you have the ball — not in anticipation of having the ball.

[Umpy]

The way MLB handles plate blocking is definitely the way my thought process arrived at this being obstruction.  It would seem like a rule being applied inconsistently if that behavior is only disallowed at home plate, but I suppose there's much more injury risk running home than diving back into 3rd.

[grayhawk]

This was not ruled obstruction.

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

This was not ruled obstruction.

Neither was this. However Lindsay never got the revised interp about the 2024 POE from MLB. 

[The Man in Blue]

Again . . . two different forms of obstruction, and lack of discussion of the timing element.

Blocking the base . . . technically guilty because of the lack of discussion on a timing element.

Hindered/impeded the runner without the ball . . . not guilty.

My opinion: The BIG difference between the picture and the LL play is that the hindrance IS what allowed the fielder to make the tag. Without the hindrance, the runner (IMO) would have been safe.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

My opinion: The BIG difference between the picture and the LL play is that the hindrance IS what allowed the fielder to make the tag. Without the hindrance, the runner (IMO) would have been safe.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it's not based on any authoritative interpretation.

Fielder is in a position to impede, but the runner isn't close enough to actually be impeded. Not obstruction.
Now the runner is being impeded, but the fielder is in possession. Not obstruction.
But the fielder couldn't have moved quick enough to impede if he hadn't already been in a position to impede when there was not yet any impedance! Still not obstruction!