Obstruction - U2 - A's vs Blue Jays

[Velho]

How does this one differ from calls in the past that quickly faded into no calls? Or is it the same POE coming back?

(Minimal video. That's all the was on the broadcast.)

h/t @MadMax for discovery

 

[MadMax]

With his left foot / leg, MacNeal (sp?) is Obstructing 2B. He set up there. It wasn't like the throw took him there. 

Nothing of what the broadcasters said was accurate or pertinent; this was an OBS call, not a "pushed him off the bag" call. 

Notice how Blakeney calls / signals it. Big . Now, it helps that he was 4-man, since he has sole responsibility / AOC on 2B, so he can observe all the activity leading up to the play, instead of 2-man, where a BU's countenance has to be on the ball bounding to the wall (and watching the boundary), the observation of the fielding and the throw, and determining the direction of the throw (with R1 going to 3B, the PU has R1 to 3B, but where's the throw yet going?), watching for touch of 2B by R1, and trying to also look over his shoulder to watch touch by BR of 1B. Lots of stuff going on, such that a lone BU could miss where a F4 or F6 is setting up. A lone BU may not, conceivably, turn his head to watch the slide of BR into 2B until the ball is just being received by the F4 at 2B!

Furthermore, notice where Blakeney is positioned. In 2-man, and even 3-man, we are conditioned to not go "beyond". We just can't. 4-man allows us to do that. In 2-man and 3-man, the BU / U3 is directed to step across the centerline to the 3B-side of the 2B cutout (the direction the ball is hit). Even in 3-man, PU has R1 to 3B, so no, we're not favoring or preparing to go on to 3B, but as the ball is relayed back to the infield, and then to 2B, we (as BU / U3) have to drop-step / pivot with the thrown ball... so our visual window to watch the front-side / 1B-side of 2B is very, very tight. Blakeney, as a proper U2 in 4-man, gave himself the largest window possible for how the play developed. 

[grayhawk]

I don't like this OBS call, and it most definitely wouldn't be correct in NCAA. In this image, F4 has possession of the ball and his left foot is not blocking the BR's path to the base. By the time his foot is between the BR and the base, he's in the process of making the tag.

[johnnyg08]

39 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't like this OBS call, and it most definitely wouldn't be correct in NCAA. In this image, F4 has possession of the ball and his left foot is not blocking the BR's path to the base. By the time his foot is between the BR and the base, he's in the process of making the tag.

If their interp is that allowing access between the legs is OBS, I can track that and agree. Where does that access end? 

What if the fielder goes into the modified splits...under NFHS apparently that's access. Could that be? 

[stevis]

Go back a frame before that--his toe is up because he's moved his foot back out of the way, and then drops it in position to block.  See about 0:43 in the video.

You can argue that having the foot there so much in advance of the runner arriving shouldn't be obstruction either, but MLB wants it called, apparently. 

[The Man in Blue]

When the rulebook finally acknowledges obstruction is 4-dimensional, we can finally start to get to some real answers.

[Velho]

On 3/28/2026 at 4:53 PM, The Man in Blue said:

When the rulebook finally acknowledges obstruction is 4-dimensional, we can finally start to get to some real answers.

Expound please. I think I know what you're getting at but hearing the articulation would be great.

[Velho]

Right call or not, I like the mechanics (with grace for not calling Time first, though no one else was on base so...). I can hear his word in my head same as if here were full mic'd.

Announcers not having enough subject matter expertise to understand the reasons aside, they knew that runner was SAFE!. Communication achieved.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Expound please. I think I know what you're getting at but hearing the articulation would be great.

Please correct me anywhere I am wrong . . . as I am apt to be.  Also, please correct me as I am operating under the myriad of differing pieces of information I have gathered over the years as I worked both softball and baseball, and in various parts of the country.

 

I am focusing on NFHS, but adjust this as needed as the concept is the same.

I am using "fourth dimension" to refer to time (not hypercubes), of course.

The central tenet of interference and obstruction is that the offender's actions directly caused an unfair disadvantage to the offended.  For a multitude of reasons, our working definition of interference/obstruction has been expanded to the parameters of what could cause interference/obstruction and focused less and less on whether it actually did cause interference/obstruction.

Example: R3 rounds third and is headed home to score.  As R3 is (a) 30 feet, (b) 45 feet, (c) 80 feet past third base, the catcher is waiting for the incoming throw, and is set up in the path between the runner and home plate.

In (a) and (b) the throw will beat the runner by a long shot.  It is very likely the catcher's positioning had no impact on the play whatsoever.

In (c) the catcher's position is very likely going to have a negative influence and force the runner to do something the runner would not have otherwise done.

Recognizing the time element of interference would leave us with no call in (a) and (b), and a likely obstruction call in (c).  However, by current standards, we have obstruction in all three.

Currently, we have few plays that allows us this discretion -- RLI, catcher's obstruction, umpire obstruction.  One of the principle elements in these cases is that the offending action MUST have an impact, otherwise we ignore the circumstances.

 

All that said, as I read the NFHS rulebook, it seems to agree with this concept.  As I have worked over the years and formats, I have been instructed otherwise.  It has felt that NFHS has tried to use "over enforcement" (IMO) as a deterrent to unsafe play (think Buster Posey).  If we penalize the defender for being in that position at any point, we will discourage them from being there when it can cause a problem.

USA Softball is the only rule set that I have worked where I was expressly told, "You can ignore that."  Example: A runner is mildly obstructed between 2nd and 3rd base, then attempts to stretch it into a scoring play.  The obstruction did NOT cause the runner to be thrown out at home plate by 10 steps.  The obstruction would protect the runner between 2nd and 3rd base.  If this was a close play, and the umpire judged the obstruction did have an impact on the play at home, an award would be made.  Since the obstruction did NOT have an impact, the out stands.

 

I dunno'.  Maybe I am rambling.  Let me know.