Lindor Called for Obstruction After Blocking Runner Kelly at 2B - Why Did Umpire It?

As Mets shortstop Francisco Lindor appeared to tag out Tigers baserunner Carson Kelly on a stolen base attempt, 2B Umpire Brennan Miller called the New York fielder for obstruction pursuant to MLB's new point of emphasis concerning base blocking, awarding the runner the base as a result. Article: www.closecallsports.com/2024/...
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Official Baseball Rule 6.01(h)(1) itself has not changed and obstruction is still defined as "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."
The primary concern with the point of emphasis this season is that fielders are unduly taking advantage of the "in the act of fielding" exception to the obstruction rule to get away with placing a leg, knee, or foot into the pathway of the runner when said fielder doesn't actually need to occupy that space to field the throw.
In instructing enforcement, MLB effectively has brought obstruction at any base into alignment similar with the standard for catchers with the home plate collision rule, in which the language used is "in a legitimate attempt to field the throw."
2B Umpire Miller here ruled that SS Lindor was NOT blocking in a legitimate attempt to field the throw and, thus, was guilty of obstruction.

[@charliegarnett9757]

I agree with the rule however I do not agree with the main video here. The runner was not obstructed in any way. I do not that that should be the intent of the rule.

[@davidlewis3072]

"you cannot block any part of the base..." explanation late in the video of what obstruction means. fielder's foot blocked half of the access to the base therefore; obstruction occurred

[@charliegarnett9757]

@@davidlewis3072 I understand the rule. I’m saying there should be an obstruction rule. And I understand that by definition this is obstruction. I was staring that in my opinion the rule should require that a runner actually be obstructed for the call to be made.

[@DAK4Blizzard]

@@davidlewis3072 Why not use the same standard as interference? I don't see anything the fielder did as impacting the runner's approach to the base.

[@CommonSense823]

@@davidlewis3072They’ve already given the runner ridiculously large bases. Placing your foot in front of 1/3 of the bag shouldn’t matter at all.

[@Subangelis]

Then you don't understand the rule. There isn't a percentage that must be "left open".

[@Renegade605]

Definitely can't say I was ever a fan of putting the entire leg down in front of the base, but neither am I a fan of this play being obstruction.

[@mskolnik2]

Definitely obstructed the runner, call it. No need for the fielder to be there. Could have gotten the out without being in the way

[@Renegade605]

@@mskolnik2 I didn't say the fielder didn't obstruct the runner, I said I'm not a fan of this being obstruction.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@Renegade605 He set up with his foot blocking more than half the bag before the ball was getting there. That is textbook obstruction.

[@Renegade605]

Sigh... Why do I bother?

[@locustjohn3865]

@@Renegade605 Got me. You're obviously wrong, so you shouldn't bother.

[@fuelvolts]

Yeah but....the spirit of the rule. This runner was out by a mile. I know I know, rules are rules. But hell, for the previous 150 years, that runner would have been out.

[@mskolnik2]

He could have tagged the runner out then. No reason to be in front of the bag blocking it if it is such a sure thing.

[@nathangarciamuro]

I agree. Out by a mile and it wasn’t any danger of collision or anything. Common sense. This will cause a lot of steels and less catcher throws.

[@auzmo]

Rules take judgement to enforce. This is poor judgement by the umpire

[@63076topher]

​@@nathangarciamuroThen why did he need to kneel in front of the bag?

[@MicahSilversmith]

​@@nathangarciamurogood that's what the MLB wants. Fans listed stolen bases as among the most exciting things to watch so MLB made several changes last year to increase stolen base rate.

[@gmlongo1]

He didn't impede the progess of any runner since the ball arrived while the runner was around 7ft away from the bag. Not to mention, he was making a legitimate attempt to field the throw when his foot moved into the basepath. This couldn't be any clearer, yet somehow you still think it's obstruction?

[@ingiford175]

If you look at his initial set up, his toe was next to the bag, when he leaned to the ball path, is when he put his foot infront of the bag; otherwise that would have been a heck of a reach if he stayed where he was to catch that ball.

[@nicsikora7914]

Definitely did not impede the runner here. This was a bad application of the rule and I think sets a bad precedent.

[@chriscone916]

hmm that play looked good in my eyes, there was plenty of exposed bag and the fielder does need position in case the runner comes with a backdoor slide.

[@mskolnik2]

Doesn’t matter, fielder didn’t have the ball, get out of the way. What you are saying is an NFL offensive lineman holds an defensive lineman on the left, and the play is a run to the right and they score a touchdown that is a holding penalty and the play will come back, regardless that the holding penalty had zero impact on the play. The defensive lineman being held would not have been able to help in any way, but that doesn’t matter. It was still a penalty, and it is wrong to do. Here in this baseball play it doesn’t matter if there was “plenty” of exposed bag left, it only matters that some wasn’t. The fielder was essentially “offsides”. In the NFL it is coming back, even if it probably wouldn’t’ve changed the outcome of the play. This is no different, and should be no different. Get out of the way unless you have the ball. Then you can get as much in the way as you want. No grey area. No 10% covered is okay, or 25%, or 40% is still open. None of that. Either the fielder is out of the way of the bag, or it is a “penalty”. Easy.

[@locustjohn3865]

No, the fielder should set up with a foot on either side of the bag until they catch the ball or the throw goes wild. The throw wasn't wild. It was dead on perfect to the glove in front of the bag.

[@phantomtides1204]

I agree with the others that the call in the video is bunk. The rule does NOT say a fielder "cannot block the base." It says obstruction is when a fielder "impedes the progress of any runner." In this play, the runner is far enough from the base that Lindor's foot does not impede his progress in any way. It impedes the runner only AFTER Lindor has caught the ball, at which point it's permissible. By the interpretation in this play, it would be obstruction if Lindor is standing in front of the base - as soon as the runner rounds first on his way to second! We can disagree about whether it's a good rule, but this was a bad call.

[@popgunandy]

This was not obstruction to me...he didn't put his leg in a position to obstruct the base, he caught the ball at the point at which the runner had no chance to beat the play and reach the bag.. He essentially had his foot in a spot to accept the throw and was waiting for the runner to reach the bag. Bad call.

[@locustjohn3865]

Except he could have just as easily set up to catch the ball without his foot there.

[@auzmo]

@@locustjohn3865 he did then as the throw came he moved his feet to be able to catch the throw. He caught the throw farther out than even his foot was. Then the throw gets there 10 feet ahead of the runner. How is he obstructing when the ball is there 10 feet ahead of the runner even touching the fielder? No one wants base blocking but this is a bad call.

[@ingiford175]

@@locustjohn3865He did, if you look where he set up at 13 seconds in, the throw was to the right of the bag, he set up center bag.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@ingiford175 While the throw was being made by the catcher, the fielder already has a foot in front of the bag. Then moves even more in front of the bag.

[@ingiford175]

@@locustjohn3865At 13 seconds in the video, his foot was at the point of the bag, I said it could be argued that he moved early and it can be argued that he moved after the throw. Compared to some of the more blatant blocking this was not a 'cut and dry' one.

[@theburnetts]

Come on. That play by Lindor was fine. His left foot was in a spot that was completely legitimate for accepting the throw from the catcher. Anyone who has ever caught a baseball understands where your feet should be. Actually for him to not have his foot in front of the base would require an “unnatural” process of catching the throw. He would have to stand awkwardly.

[@osumariokartman]

Especially considering the fact that he caught the ball basically where the "obstructing" foot was. You're telling me that that foot impeded the runner's path to the base *through the baseball in the glove*?

[@ingiford175]

Especially look at his initial position he had to move from at 13 seconds in. That would have been heck of a reach to get to the ball from that position.

[@jessebarber79]

Amen to all above comments.

[@kevinkiss3340]

On this play I m not calling Obstruction for NFHS ball. Runner is not even close to the bag.

[@auzmo]

That is a terrible call. He caught the ball outside his foot therefore throw took him there and it beats the runner by 3 steps. Made no difference where he put his foot.

[@gerry7446]

The ball beat the runner by a mile. Is this a point of emphasis or overemphasis? As Hank Hill said to Bobby, "Don't play lawyerball."

[@leehanson1416]

First, the throw did take him across the bag. Second, the runner did get a foot on the bag. Third, the throw had clearly beaten the runner.

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

Sorry, but enforcing the rule on something incidental like this Lindor play is f'ing garbage. If you're going to be illustrating the rule by showing other guys laying down their entire leg in front of the bag, the conclusion ought to be, "and that's why THIS was a bad call". No one watches baseball to see bs calls like this.

[@bigpoppa1234]

This is the umps doing what they're told by the owners. This 'interpretation', 're-emphasis', whatever you call it, it's happening because owners don't want a star player ending up in a freak accident where someone gets their leg or arm broken.

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

@@bigpoppa1234 Would love to see data on how many guys have gotten injured on something like the Lindor play. I’m guessing somewhere between 0 and 0. There are going to be more injuries from guys straining to receive throws while afraid to get into a proper position.

[@waakca]

I think the runner was tagged out before he was actually impeded. That is, before the fielder obstructed his pathway.

[@davegaetano7118]

Good point.

[@Subangelis]

His foot was there before he even had the ball. Being in the way is obstruction. Anything beyond that doesn't matter.

[@route2070]

I get it, but when the ball beats you by that much....that should be an out. That said the swim move has worked well, so who knows.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

sadly rules are rules so they have to enforce them as written no matter what they think the actual final outcome would've been.

[@mskolnik2]

If the ball beats the runner by a mile, it is still up to the fielder to tag. This is just poor fieldsmanship. Swim move works just fine still, if the fielder possesses the ball they can block to their heart’s content. It isn’t obstruction if you have the ball, so get it, then get in the way. If you don’t have it, get out of the way. It is so simple and the game should have been like this decades ago

[@sethheasley9538]

Is there a distance from the bag limitation on this? Could Lindor be positioned that way if the runner was 40 feet away, receive the ball at that time, and still be called for obstruction?

[@CurtisBooksMusic]

Exactly. Gonna be some stupid calls if they don't take care of this before regular season (really) starts.

[@MicahSilversmith]

This is a poor take. Pause it at 2:12 In this particular play, you can clearly see that the runner was already sliding when Lindor was blocking the bag and did not have the ball.

[@MwD676]

@@MicahSilversmith He does not need to possess the ball. If he is in the act of making a legitimate attempt to field/catch the throw, then he is not liable for obstruction.

[@MicahSilversmith]

@@MwD676 that's irrelevant to my reply. The top level comment made a ridiculous statement about being 40 feet away, and my reply was that in this case, the runner was already actually sliding and therefore could/would be affected by a theoretical obstruction. Regardless, I think you missed the entire point of the video. Did you actually watch it? As we have seen, your statement is not true. The new interpretation is that the potential obstruction ITSELF must be a movement that was necessary to field the ball. So simply being in the act of fielding the ball no longer gives you carte blanche to obstruct the runner when it isn't necessary to make the play.

[@wiramonol5266]

To me, that seemed like a very natural fielding position and motion for that thow.

[@duelist301]

It seems natural because fielders have been allowed for years to preposition themselves like that for quick tags. MLB is saying not anymore.

[@wiramonol5266]

@@duelist301 Part of what I am asking myself is “what was he supposed to do?” I don’t know if moving significantly up or back to field that ball really made sense.

[@MaydayAggro]

@@wiramonol5266 He could have moved parallel with the base path to make the catch. Instead he moved INTO the base path.

[@teebob21]

​@@wiramonol5266Catch the ball, and only then block the base. That is what he is supposed to do.

[@SLagonia]

There's a big difference between blocking a base and having a small piece of your foot somewhere near the base. What in the world are the fielders supposed to do? Field the ball away from the base and run over to it?

[@Leafsdude]

In this case, the shortstop has their foot away from the base when they first prep to receive the ball (1:32). They then don't move *any* part of their body *but* their foot as the ball makes its way into the base and they apply the tag (1:34). If they field the play without moving their foot, their actions on the play is exactly the same, except they don't block the base. All the fielder needs to do is not do that one very little thing that violates the rules that doesn't otherwise alter the motions involved on the play. This isn't very hard.

[@MwD676]

The step (or moving the foot) is a legitimate attempt to field the throw.

[@Leafsdude]

@@MwD676 Debatable. At the very least, the umpire didn't see it that way.

[@Subangelis]

Instead of in front of the base, he could have put his foot on the base.

[@Subangelis]

@@MwD676 No. A legitimate attempt is a thrown ball that takes you INTO the path. He did not need to step to catch the ball.

[@juicerversion1236]

This has got to be clarified before opening day.

[@ChrisMeade18]

1. If it's not legitimate, it's illegitimate. What was illegitimate about where Lindor was when he received receive the throw? Are we going to draw imaginary lines at all bases telling fielders where they can stand when receiving a throw like we did with home plate and the foul lines (which are much less imaginary). Will the "baseline" become a thing for the first time? This emphasis has not been fleshed out well enough to put this into the game yet. 2. You're not impeding the runner's progress when you have the ball. He had the ball early enough that the runner was never impeded while he didn't have the ball. I sure hope this is a post spring training pre regular season case play of when NOT to call obstruction. Alas, I doubt the MLB and umpires will adjust that quickly.

[@another_jt]

So they've replaced a less subjective interpretation, "is the player in the act of fielding a ball" with a more subjective interpretation, "does the fielder need to be in that location to field the ball". And that really comes down to an umpire's judgement at the time. In this case, did Lindor need that last step that put his foot in front of the bag to catch the ball? Well, the throw appears to have been tailing towards the 1st base side, so, maybe? Was Miller in a good position to see that? I have no idea. As with the catcher, it seems that the fielder cannot move to certain areas to catch the ball until after they've caught the ball.

[@locustjohn3865]

The throw was dead on to his glove right in front of the bag.

[@another_jt]

@@locustjohn3865 The throw was excellent, exactly where it was supposed to be.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@another_jt Unfortunately, the fielder wasn't where he was supposed to be.

[@ingiford175]

@@locustjohn3865Yep, because the fielder started in the wrong place not to obstruct, and was pulled to make that catch. If you look at his initial set up at 13 seconds in and how he had to move to catch the ball, it could be argued that was a good catch.

[@alvinthecat8426]

Runner was out, simple. The rest is BS.

[@63076topher]

How he HAD to alter his path because the fielder WITHOUT possession of the ball blocked the base?

[@mikestermike]

He's only obstructing with a ball in a glove...this year I feel a sense of dumb coming on....

[@ElectricScooterMan]

Yep getting used to hear the word “obstruction” all season long.

[@RR-oy1yh]

This may be a silly question, but how can that fielder be "impeding" if the ball and the tag both came well before the runner could even reach the bag? I get in on a "bang bang" type of play, but that runner is out by a mile.

[@locustjohn3865]

Maybe the runner had to change where he was running because of the obstruction. Maybe the runner had to change where he was going to slide because of the obstruction. Maybe the fielder bobbles the ball when he catches it and the runner is safe. The point is nobody can predict what would have happened if the fielder didn't obstruct the bag.

[@CommonSense823]

@@locustjohn3865if the runner is going to any part of the bag other than where he slid on this play, he should be out for pure stupidity.

[@gmlongo1]

The fielder obviously didn't impede the runner...so even with stronger enforcement of the rule, this was not obstruction.

[@gmlongo1]

​@@locustjohn3865he didn't do any of those things.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@gmlongo1 So you know what is going through the runner's mind?

[@eezeepee]

Thank you for doing this one! Still would like the Bogaerts pitch clock though. 😊

[@DisillusionedAcronym]

wanna see that, too. i only saw highlights and that was weird.

[@see8chsee]

If, say, the runner is 20 feet away when the fielder catches the ball in front of the 2nd base. Would it still be obstruction? 30 feet? 10, 8, or 6 feet?

[@CurtisBooksMusic]

This is NOT obstruction. Sorry. First, he didn't block the base entirely. Second, the runner was no where near the bag when he did it. IF this is correct interpretation of the rule, it needs changed before regular season.

[@locustjohn3865]

Doesn't matter how much or how little the fielder is blocking the base.

[@CurtisBooksMusic]

@@locustjohn3865 sure does. If it doesn't impede the runner.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@CurtisBooksMusic And if the runner had to change where he was running because the fielder had his foot in front of the bag, is that not "impeding" the runner? If the runner has to change where he was going to slide because the fielder is blocking the bag, would that not also be "impeding" the runner? Again, it does not matter how much or how little the bag is being blocked.

[@CurtisBooksMusic]

@@locustjohn3865 you answered your own question

[@MwD676]

The runner almost always I’ll slide to outside of bag…because throw and tag are coming from the inside. The runner does not make an adjustment because he is impeded. He makes an adjustment to avoid the impending tag.

[@Desirsar]

Much like all the runner's lane interference calls go away if the batters actually stay in the lane, the obstruction calls go away if the player throwing the ball aims it somewhere his teammate can catch it without getting in front of the bag but still make the tag.

[@ReinhardLenninger]

Sadly most of the Rule changes over the last couple of years made me lose my interest in watching baseball

[@Kirkshelton]

that's BS. Whats he supposed to do stand with his feet together and lean over the line without falling to catch the ball? That dude was out no matter where the fielder's feet are. Stupid.

[@ingiford175]

He set up in the line, that is the issue. You can move into the base path if the ball was thrown there, but you can not start there.

[@Kirkshelton]

d175 if you watch closely he moves his foot at the last min to have the balance to get the ball. But either way if he was 20 ft away using a pole and basket to catch it,the runner is out by a mile. And he knew it.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

​@@Kirkshelton doesn't matter if he was out or not, that's not what the point of emphasis is about and having balance isn't a good enough excuse for an Umpire, you have to be BLOCKING the bag in a legitimate attempt to receive the throw, balancing can be done in other ways without obstruction.

[@Kirkshelton]

@MattZRJSRoxy when a rule is made to prevent someone from stopping a player from advancing to the bag the rule is moot if they were going to be out no matter what. If it's just the rules then the rules are stupid. He was clear of the bag until he had to adjust to catch it. Let them play FFS

[@theburnetts]

@@ingiford175so if Lindor sets up in front of the base, the runner is 40 feet away, then Lindor receives the ball when the runner is 25 feet away that’s still obstruction? Doesn’t the distance that the runner is from the base come in to play? If a runner is rounding second base and heading to third and he is 85 feet away and the third baseman sets up in front the base is that *immediately* obstruction even though the runner is 85 feet away?

[@patersonplankrd]

There was at last half the base exposed to the runner for access. This is a BAD call. Plus, the ball took the fielder into the path of the runner. That is two criteria which have to be looked at and adjustments made. We cannot have the umpires playing the game for the players, We don't pay to see the umpires work the games. My solution is old school. Slide spikes first. If a fielder wants to expose their body in order to block the base, they will exit the field with holes to be bandaged.

[@teebob21]

Obstruction doesn't require the entire base to be blocked.

[@brianmullaney6237]

"in a legitimate attempt to field the throw" has been the alleged interpretation for years, yet we all saw the calls last season when the infallible umps in NY had a different idea. Do we really believe that this "point of emphasis" is an improvement? If you want someone to learn why blocking the bag with your leg is bad, go in spikes first. I'm sure they will learn.

[@jacobwerman1008]

Maybe MLB should change the rule so this isn't an or then. The dude was going to be out by ten feet. These technicalities are so dumb.

[@patrickac2]

MLB last year: These manager-umpire arguments are getting out of hand. It's really disconcerting. MLB this year: Let's re-interpret this rule in a way that's really going to make managers irate.

[@teebob21]

You do realize that the MLB Competition Committee is made up of 6 team representatives (owners), 4 player representatives, and 1 umpire representative? This is what the clubs wanted.

[@theburnetts]

Here’s another question about this point of emphasis. Is there any guidance for how close the runner has to be to the base for obstruction to be called? What if Lindor blocked the base with his left foot without the ball and the runner was 40 feet away? Is that obstruction? 30 feet away? Is that obstruction? If Lindor blocks the base with his foot without the ball and the runner is 40 feet from the base but then Lindor receives the ball when the runner is 30 feet from the base is that obstruction? Do the umpires have any guidance for how close the runner must be to call obstruction?

[@ronpeacock9939]

on this play… he only stepped there when he figured out where the ball was and it was in fact in the path… still… in this case.. I don’t agree.. the foot DID NOT obstruct.. the glove with the ball in it obstructed more….

[@locustjohn3865]

You ain't played a lot of baseball have you?

[@CommonSense823]

@@locustjohn3865this from the guy who claims that because he slid to the back half of the bag, on a throw from the plate, it makes it clear there was obstruction. You’ve never played.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@CommonSense823 I obviously played MUCH more than you. What party of blocking any part of the bag before he gets the ball do you not understand?

[@MwD676]

@@locustjohn3865 Not the rule. He makes the step in front of the bag in a legitimate (and successful) attempt to field the throw.

[@priceright8963]

This is enforcing a rule for the sake of enforcing a rule. The grey area behind the home plate collision rule is big enough.

[@MwD676]

It’s now the same as the plate blocking rule. (Except less clarity and no replay.) We can now get rid of the plate blocking rule. It should have always been an obstruction rule anyway.

[@nymets1104]

so if I stand in front of the base without the ball and the runner is 15 feet away he is suddenly safe? Give me a break.

[@marksieving7925]

They put the rule up on the screen. Why didn't you read it? What part of "while not in possession of the ball" do you not understand?

[@nymets1104]

@@marksieving7925 was a typo thought I typed without. Sorry to upset you

[@tchevrier]

based on the rules, I would say this was a blown call. His foot was there because that's where he needed to be to catch the ball. And the throw was well ahead of the runner.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

his foot was there to block the base, it didn't have to be there to receive the ball which is why that was obstruction.

[@tchevrier]

@@MattZRJSRoxy you are completely wrong. His foot was there to catch the ball. In case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly where the ball was thrown. That combined with the fact that he had the ball well before the base runner got there means that in absolutely no way possible was he able to obstruct anything. it was a blown call

[@CommonSense823]

@@MattZRJSRoxyShaq couldn’t block these huge bases with his foot. You’re ridiculous.

[@voxelation]

Based on the rules, it was correct. Rule 6.01(h) Comment: '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 he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.”' So if the fielder sets up in position to catch the ball before it is necessary to do so, and that position is in the baseline, that is not "in the act of fielding a ball" and may be called for obstruction. If Lindor moved into that position to catch the ball, he'd be fine. Since he set up there to catch it, he wasn't.

[@tchevrier]

@@voxelation No! Lindor did NOT set up there to catch the ball. He moved there in order to receive the ball. That by the definition you quoted means that he was "in the act of catching the ball" and therefore it was NOT obstruction. Furthermore, he didn't actually obstruct the baserunner from reaching the bag because he had the ball in sufficient time to be waiting for the runner.

[@guyray1504]

The runner had about half the base available.

[@doohuh]

Stolen bases will be interesting this year

[@limey7066]

How can this be considered obstruction when the players is 10 feet away from the bag when the fielder has the ball? He slide into the glove. His foot in front of the bag is meaningless. There was zero obstruction. This is a horrible interpretation of what the rule is meant to prevent. If the player slide into his foot Before the ball arrived and prevented him from reaching the bag then yes... That's obstruction but in this case... No way. The runner was NEVER impeded. This needs to be changed immediately.

[@MwD676]

U2 is still moving when Lindor is initially set up legally. Once set, he sees the foot moved into the base path (in an attempt to field the throw).

[@mae2759]

That runner was not impeded in any way. Doesn't matter where his foot is located if the runner wasn't impeded.

[@PlatinumHowler]

This call is silly. The ball beat the runner to the spot, Lindor's positioning had no bearing on the runner being safe or out. There is nothing you can say to me that will convince me this was the correct call

[@patricklord2575]

Lindsay, Are you Canadian? I heard a little accent when you said “out”. Not that it matters, just noticed for the first time after how many videos. Keep up the good work 😊

[@williamvoelkel9179]

I speculate they had too much maple syrup and it just kinda happened

[@paulcalhoun6339]

Oh my…..soon we need permission slips to tag a runner.

[@daleb7372]

this is what is called malicious compliance. Since Kelley was out by a mile, What this will do is create a 3' by 90' lane fielders are not to be in at any time. And maybe that will not be good enough for every situation. The rule should not even be in effect until the runner is like a step away from the base and the fielder doesnt have the ball.

[@andrewrexroth577]

"I must occupy this space because the given trajectory of the thrown ball will put my glove in an optimal position to tag the baserunner, resulting in an out."

[@WhosOnFirstTheShow]

Guess this season is going to be interesting. 😮

[@MrHmg55]

Missed call here, but not by the ump! Rather, the word "call" is missing from the title of this video, which reads "Why did umpire it?" and not "Why did umpire call it?"

[@eltors0]

Ridiculous. Where is the fielder supposed to position themselves when the base path is ambiguous to begin with? This isn’t to say that they need to make a depicted protected path/zone, but more of a complaint that that this is going to make the game worse. Should Lindor have played behind the bag? In front of the bag? How far away to make it clear that he isn’t impeding the runner? It’s definitely not about protecting the players at this extreme.

[@teebob21]

A fielder not in possession of the ball, and not fielding a batted ball, may not block the base. Simple as that.

[@MwD676]

@@teebob21 That is FED interpretation. OBR allows the fielder be in the act of fielding/catching the throw. The POE just says that the blocking must be a legitimate attempt to field the throw and not some extraneous action intended solely to block the base.

[@Bart-holow-mew]

Than last nights 5/1/24 blocking of home plate by the Cubs in the 9th inning against the Mets was just that. He blocked the plate prior to having the ball. Same thing if you ask me. Same exact thing. MLB and the umps have to get this right, once an for all.

[@vaseevol]

If a fielder’s body part being between the runner and the base, even if the runner is not in the process of actually touching the base, is obstruction, all a runner needs to do is wait until a fielder is between him and the base then make an attempt to reach that base. He’s automatically safe under this interpretation. This is a decent rule being ignorantly applied in this case.

[@DirkFedermann]

You can just see, that the runner has gone off the bag, after touching the bag. Can the fielder still tag the runner out or is the play called dead, when the umpire waves the hands like in that video?

[@natebrowell4646]

In all instances where there's a play being made on the runner ... the play is dead as soon as obstruction occurs.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

​@@natebrowell4646 I just googled this just to be certain and MLB actually has a direct page on this, let me quote what it says "Obstruction describes an act by a fielder, who is not in possession of the ball or in the process of fielding it, that impedes the baserunner's progress. If a play is being made on the obstructed baserunner, the ball is ruled dead and the umpire can place all runners on the base he determines they would have reached without the obstruction. If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the umpire will allow the play to progress until its natural conclusion and then impose any penalties he sees fit to nullify the act of obstruction."

[@MwD676]

“Waves the hands like that” is calling time. So the ball is dead for that reason also.

[@MrMaelstrom07]

What does that mean for us calling NFHS coming into this season?

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

that's up to your officials on whether they want to go this hard or not so perhaps you should be contacting them and asking them about that.

[@MwD676]

FED has always had a different rule/interpretation of what constitutes obstruction.

[@seanbush5056]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The throw beat the runner by a mile, these are the small things ruining the game. This is nothing more than taking away a great reaction & throw from the catcher to erase a strike em out, throw em out. Lindor literally fielded the ball to tag the runner out.

[@williamsampson4460]

I actually like the rule. Fielders should stand in front of a bag to catch and the ball and then swipe tag. This should not be difficult to do.

[@joshnaudi]

Woohoo - Tie finally went to the runner!!! Looking forward to the ejection vids in 2024

[@WasBWrite]

This should have been solved 50 years ago. They finally got home base correct now the other bases are corrected. Blocking bases has always been wrong.

[@benjaminwirth1208]

Not sure if I missed this but is this a challengeable play, non reviewable, or only umpire initiated?

[@MwD676]

Obstruction is not on the list of reviewable plays.

[@worldsedge4991]

I’m glad for this explanation. The play certainly looked “clean” to me, but you clarified that his foot was in front of 30% of the bag.

[@ingiford175]

If you look at his initial set up at 13 seconds in, he was not blocking the bag, look like he was expecting a throw center bag, throw came right (viewers right) of bag, and he had to move to catch it.

[@worldsedge4991]

@@ingiford175 ​​⁠ Well. This explanation is at least a little more sensible than my original thought that the umpire called it obstruction because the fielder’s _glove_ was in the runner’s direct route to the plate. That would be really stupid as that’s the way to apply a tag. But, I do think this was an out that was made safe by a really technical call…

[@ingiford175]

@@worldsedge4991I think it was him sliding his foot between the bag and the runner while reaching for the catch. The umpire ruled that the foot movement was not needed to catch he ball.

[@stuff_n_thanngs7552]

So was Kelly awarded 3rd? Which in turn forced in a run?

[@andrecanis4894]

I don’t think so. You get one base beyond the base you had last touched. The obstruction happened before he touched 2nd so he only gets second base. (The umpire can award more bases but only if he thinks the runner would have gotten there without the obstruction)

[@MwD676]

He was awarded 2nd. The runner would be awarded 3rd if obstructed going back to 2nd on a pickoff. (And that would force R3 home.)

[@WilliamBrockman-gu7tm]

This sort of "rule" is going to ruin baseball. Doesn't the rule say "impedes progress?" The fielder had the ball before any attempt was made to touch the base. It also looks like there was still partial path to the bag. Poor call by the umpire. Should have been called out and reviewed for the obstruction. Even worse on MLB for allowing this sort of thing to happen. Unpopular opinion, but the "unwritten rules" were there for a reason. There used to be consequences for dirty play (collisions).

[@Brent-Tanabe]

If this is how the rule is interpreted its as dumb as Manfred

[@mikefargo4339]

If his foot was on the side or behind the base, this runner was still out by a mile & a half. He (the runner) was nowhere near the fielder, while he was fielding the ball.

[@pmac7850]

Bad call in my view. Runner didn’t slow or have to divert whatsoever.

[@ingiford175]

And his initial set up 13 seconds in shows where he was expecting the throw (center bag), and not towards the first base side.

[@jonathancoates5195]

This would be so hard for me. Lindor fielded that exactly how I was taught.

[@davegaetano7118]

I'm not in favor of rules that make it easier to steal bases. The runner should have to earn it through his own speed, if he has any.

[@deweytiffanywoods3260]

How about this one to bake your noodles....as a runner, just get caught in a rundown. The entire infield lines up in "obstruction". You could steal every base, including home. At that point, why run? You could walk the bases. 😂😂😂

[@baseballfan9848]

From the first base to second base angle you will notice that the act of the fielder stepping (without the ball or in the act of fielding a batted ball), steps into the direct path of the runners base path. This act causes the runner to alter their path in an attempt to get past the fielder, who did not have the ball. A better question would be,... Would this have been called Obstruction if the runner turned around and headed back to first? or even on Run-downs?

[@fifiwoof1969]

'aboot' is there something Canadian here that I'm missing. Lindsay channelling South Park.😂😂😂😂😂

[@bralph82]

This seems bad

[@morningsidedriverock]

Think about it like this. The blocking home plate applies to every base now.

[@andrecanis4894]

Yeah but… wasn’t the rule/interpretation at home plate that you have to leave a lane for the runner? So you can block part of home plate as long as you leave a path open, but apparently you can’t block *any* part of the other bases? I feel this needs more clarification. Or am I remembering the home plate rule wrong?

[@CommonSense823]

@@andrecanis4894not to mention the other bases are the size of a quarter acre now. There was plenty of bag for the runner to slide to.

[@teebob21]

It always has. It just wasn't called by the book. The instructions from the Competition Committee for this year are to call OBS by the book.

[@CommonSense823]

@@teebob21 and he still managed to call it wrong.

[@morningsidedriverock]

@@teebob21 exactly

[@chuckw4680]

"act of fielding" = fielder has the ball?! Then just say it. Baseball rules are getting to ridiculous.

[@FUGP72]

They are going to need to do the same thing they did with the catcher rule when it was first implemented. Tell umpires to stop being so fucking anal about it and apply COMMON SENSE. He clearly has the fucking ball LONG before the runner was even close. NO ONE wants to see this called. Rules should not be designed to COMPLETELY change the way the game has been played for a century and a half now. And if you are out by a mile, you should still be out by a mile regardless of where the fielder was standing.

[@teebob21]

The Competition Committee explicitly told umpires to call OBS by the book this year. They are doing exactly what the clubs have instructed them to do.

[@vissermatt1058]

Gonna call bullshit, that was a perfect out

[@SJKRoberts]

This still doesn’t look like obstruction to me

[@FUGP72]

These players have been taught their entire lives that you let the ball come to the bag. Now they are being told "You are all part of the pussy generation. So you can't be anywhere near the bag when you catch the ball. You have to catch it and bring it al the way back to the runner. I know it is slower. But that's good too! We have made our game SO fucking boring with strikeouts that we want to artificially add "excitemen56t" to the game. So anything to make stolen bases easier is fine with us. Even though within two years, no one will be trying to steal again anyway."

[@chriscone916]

then make their foot, leg , whatever an extension of the base, problem solved

[@RANDYELLIS-dw1pl]

just waiting for one of these umps to defend this major screw up by this ump......you know the kind that have no feel for a play or game, just hair splitters that want to decide the game on technicalities

[@flairwhoo]

Look at the replay, more than half the base is open and the runner is sliding into the uncovered part of the base. So if the interpretation is correct, this rule is even more constrictive and should have just remained a non-emphasis. If the entire base is covered, i get it. If this was a bang/bang play, maybe i can see it. But don't reward the offense when there is no prayer of being safe otherwise

[@doittoit00]

@flairwhoo Not only that but if you look at Kelly he was clearly moving to slide to the outfield side of the base before Lindor moved his foot to catch the throw. As a player who is both a middle infielder and a base stealer I don’t like this interpretation. Kelly is out, he was not impeded at all.

[@jessebarber79]

Terrible rule . Ball clearly beats the runner and I seriously see no other way for the fielder to field that throw . Runner should be out by a mile. Terrible new rule . I wouldn't enforce that rule if I were umpiring whatsoever on that particular play. Not a block at all.

[@jaredlash5002]

Thanks, I hate it.

[@metzilla]

2 things, ... 1: by rule, yes, I get this. He was out by a MILE, but still, the rule needs to be enforced and there needs to be clear parameters, - check-. They'll get used to it for sure, quickly! 2: Linds, I never realized the Canadian accent before?

[@locustjohn3865]

I thought I heard an "aboot" in there myself.

[@ep4412]

Is it challengeable either way??

[@MwD676]

Obstruction is not on the list of reviewable plays. Plate block ( which is really just obstruction at home) is still reviewable however.

[@LoganReads]

They could get rid of the obstruction rule if they went back to letting the runner bowl over the fielder.

[@EnjoyerofMiserableMarinersBsbl]

MLB gets worse and worse every single year.

[@christasimon9716]

"Obstruction!" or "He was reaching for my glove!" or "Stop resisting!" or whatever damn thing is next.

[@locustjohn3865]

"I can't breathe!'

[@Lannerii]

took aboot

[@davidstevenson5429]

😊

[@davegaetano7118]

Whenever I had to slide into second base, I always tried to slide along the edge of the bag that faces third base. So I have zero sympathy with a fielder who is standing in such a way that he blocks that slide, especially if he is doing so before he even has the ball.

[@gmlongo1]

Why would you choose to slide closer to the direction the tag is coming from?

[@davegaetano7118]

@@gmlongo1 First, I always wanted to slide with my back and the rear of my head towards home plate, because I really didn't want to risk the thrown ball in my face. Second, I didn't want to risk breaking a leg or ankle by coming in hard directly at the bag, so I preferred to slide along the edge of the bag. Third, I would then stop my forward momentum with my right arm crotch etc. grabbing the near side of the bag (the side facing first base). BTW, it pains me to watch MLB base stealers slide into the bag when their bodies hit the ground while their feet are still far from the bag.

[@gmlongo1]

@@davegaetano7118 you can still do that while sliding into the back portion of second base.

[@davegaetano7118]

@@gmlongo1 If you slide into the back portion of second base, you have to choose between being able to stop yourself with your armpit (the left one in this case) or facing away from the thrown ball. If you are facing away, you don't really have good strength stopping yourself with your left arm.

[@gmlongo1]

@@davegaetano7118 I think you aren't understanding where the back portion of the base is. Sliding into it is no different than sliding into the front...except you are a bit further from the tag.

[@brendansaadat9358]

Next, MLB should implement the “deception rule” where base runners aren’t allowed to slide.

[@deputyduffy]

Shitty call by the Ump

[@locustjohn3865]

I played a lot of second base, through college, and the fielder didn't need to have his foot there to catch the throw.

[@jks612]

Flipside: The runner doesn't need the fielder's foot to be anywhere to be out. He's out no matter where that foot is.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@jks612 Flip-flipside: The runner has to change stride and the trajectory of the slide because he sees the fielder blocking a majority of the bag.

[@jks612]

@@locustjohn3865 FlipFlipFlipside Agreed. It just hurts to see. Possible compromise: They add to the rule that runners have the right to break the bones of fielders to who break the rule.

[@locustjohn3865]

@@jks612 That's another reason why they are enforcing the rule stronger.

[@CommonSense823]

You’ve clearly never played a day in your life. This comment proves it.

[@DinkinFlicka11]

They've ruined baseball. No wonder no one watches

[@Drew-pd8nt]

This is just to give umps a means to overturn important calls when rigging games. MLB rules have worked just fine the way they are for a hundred years.

[@teebob21]

The obstruction rule hasn't been changed since 1954. The difference this year is that the Competition Committee and the league office have told umpires to enforce the OBS rule by the book starting this year.

[@Drew-pd8nt]

@@teebob21 By the book? "An unobstructed path to a base is not granted if the fielder is in the process of catching the ball". This call here is complete bullshit and this just opens a can of worms. But yeah you are right the rules were already on the books, they are just being twisted by some morons.

[@MwD676]

The POE gives new guidance on how to interpret the book. So it does change how the rule is called without changing the book. The new interpretation is about safety and consistency. It is not about conspiracy theories relating to rigging games.

[@Drew-pd8nt]

@@MwD676 The rule explicitly states that obstruction does not apply when an infielder is attempting to catch the ball like you see in the video. It has absolutely nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with putting control of the outcome of games in the hands of crooked umpires.