MIL@PIT: Counsell gets ejected arguing a strange play

[@Nuclear_Gandhi]

4:45 "This is a rare moment to see a manager argue with an umpire" Does that commentator not watch baseball?

[@hill0048]

Marshall H. I was just gonna comment that but I figured I'd see if somebody beat me to it first.

[@calebhoekstra7760]

SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE lol

[@LucasDidier22]

Ever since instant replay started, it has been pretty rare. There are significantly less arguments now

[@brandonxia4561]

Gandhi the Terrible No, he's right. It is rare because the managers usually argue angrily. He's one of the calmest that got ejected. Lol

[@hifijohn]

I guess hes never seen john farrell.

[@DBR00]

Tim McCarver and Joe Buck should have deconstructed this play. They would still be discussing this into 2021.

[@xXJMatherXx]

and Tim McCarver would make up about 27 different words to explain more precisely what he means..

[@barryswanson9708]

You mean 2120?

[@donaldthomas7070]

It's now 2023. McCarver recently passed away. He is now deconstructing the play in the afterlife: "Look, God, here's what really happened . . ."

[@1975steves]

The judgement of the call, this is by rule Type 1 (formerly Type A) obstruction. That means it is an immediate dead ball situation (rule 6.01) Type 1 occurs when there is a play on the runner in question. (As it was in this case.) So you now have an immediate dead ball situation. It then becomes the umpire's decision to award bases based on if obstruction had not occured. Runner was on first when play began (not second). It would not be reasonable to assert that a runner would score from first base on an infield overthrow (unless Billy Hamilton is running). Now it has to be determined whether the throw remained in play or went out of play. If throw went out of play, batter runner would be awarded 2nd base (by rule) and runner on first would be awarded third (by rule). If the throw was still in play, then it is simply umpire judgement. I would have still awarded runner on first to third base. Based on where the throw ended up, it would not have induced a runner to go from first to second. Therefore, in my judgement, I would have not awarded the batter runner second base. Now as to whether there was even obstruction to begin with, on a play of this nature, the ball batter runner and the first basemen all must arrive at the same time. In this case the umpire is looking for whether first basemen makes contact with the ball. It appears that he does not. I believe that this was a recent OBR rules change. This play, in my opinion, is the most dangerous play in baseball in that a first baseman attempting to field a bad throw is left completely defenseless. (Nobody dies, but a lot of broken wrists). I do not believe that there was any discussion as to whether there was any obstruction. There is no running lane violation. This was not a bunt or swinging bunt sitaution. The ball was thrown from third baseman and not from the home plate area. And actually, if you look closely, batter runner is in running lane up and until first baseman lands directly in his path. He then takes a step inside fair territory in an attempt to avoid the first baseman. that is when the obstruction occurs.

[@jmhydn58]

MLB with their type 1 and type 2 bull💩 is typical MLB and it widdles down to the calling officials, ie Brian Gorman. Obstruction... batter runner protected to first. Live ball (hey 2nd base/rf) go pick up the ball, run scores. Poor ‘judgement’.

[@billrobelen4948]

@@jmhydn58 It is not just MLB. All levels of baseball use the same standard for obstruction. Type one obstruction is committed on a player on whom a play is being attempted. Type 2 is obstruction on any other runner. This particular case would be type 2 obstruction in my opinion. At the time obstruction occurs, the ball has already passed the baseman. Therefore, you should let the play play out. In this case, I would not award any bases other than first, because the runner made no effort to continue past first until after the throw to home.

[@actuarialguy]

I can't agree that this is obstruction of the batter runner. The first baseman was still in the process of attempting to make a play on the ball which is an exemption to obstruction of a runner. The initial rulings where the run scored and the out at second should have stood.

[@alanhess9306]

@@actuarialguy No, the fielder is no longer making a play on the ball once it is past him. The umpires were 100% correct and Counsell should learn the rule.

[@socialumpire]

This is obstruction BEFORE first base which changes everything!

[@CV1989Colt]

The obstruction only protects 1st base since the batter had not yet obtained the base. He attempted to advance to 2nd base on the throw home putting himself at risk. Run should have scored, batter out at 2nd.

[@alexchavez777]

the Balk rule has the part about runner advancing at his own risk. with obstruction, you put the runners where you think they belong if there had been no obstruction, and furthermore, with Type A obstruction (which we have here, obstruction on the runner that a play is being made on) it's an immediate dead ball - so he CAN'T get himself out on his own risk.

[@EShum]

ok but the obstruction call in the 2013 WS was a great job by the umpires

[@alanhess9306]

CV1989Colt, No, the runner cannot be out at second since the ball is dead when obstruction occurs prior to the batter-runner reaching first base.

[@takeitallin6882]

@@alanhess9306 you are correct. Dead ball... then umpires are to award bases to the batter runner and any other runners (that they judge the runners would have gotten to safely had the obstruction not occurred )

[@RichieNicksGaming]

Run wouldn't have scored then...

[@xXxXFALL3NXxXx]

He should have been awarded first and the run scores, but he was only out because he decided to run to 2nd late. The interference didn't cause him to be called out.

[@RAGGINIT11]

exactly what I was thinking

[@chrism7574]

xReptarMuffin So you think the run should score but the 3rd out is recorded, right?

[@zgaviation6481]

Ball is automatically dead if obstruction occurs before 1st base only.

[@zgaviation6481]

That's why he is at first and the runner goes back to 3rd

[@AEMoreira81]

It's Type A obstruction. If there had been no obstruction, there would likely be a play at third base, and that's where the runner on first had been placed.

[@DavidEmerling79]

The announcers initially _incorrectly_ state that obstruction should result in a delayed dead ball situation. That is _sometimes_ true, provided no play is being made on the obstructed runner. [Example: Batter hits a gap shot, while the outfielders are chasing the ball at the wall and the runner is rounding 1st, he (the runner) collides with the first baseman who was wandering around in the runner's path. This would be a delayed dead ball. But that's not what happened.] Later, the announcers finally get out the rule book and notice that there are actually _two_ types of obstruction rules. The play that occurred on the field was the type of obstruction that should _immediately_ be called dead - then the umpires place all runners to whichever base (in the umpire's judgement) the runners would have achieved had the obstruction not occurred. Since the wild throw was made prior to the obstruction, the umpires should consider the ramifications of that wild throw. The ball ended up about 70 feet out in shallow right field. Also, they have to assume that the batter would not have been shaken up on the play and could have easily continued running without breaking step. Personally, I would have placed the batter-runner at 2nd (as they did) and I would have allowed the run to score (which they didn't). The best evidence that the runner would have scored is that he actually _did_ score, easily, even though he was the entire focus of the defense's efforts. The runner was so completely safe at home that the catcher didn't even bother to position himself to make a tag. I don't see how one could argue that the runner would not have scored when he actually _did_ score despite the defense's best effort.

[@acehyatt44]

Its because the rule states the batter runner gets one base beyond the bag last legally touched. Since the runner had not reached 1st, the runner acquires 1st on the dead-ball.

[@codyfrykman2119]

This is the correct answer. It’s obstruction on a batter-runner, which should be an immediate dead ball.

[@cmk642]

merlinthegray ikr

[@almostfm]

Yeah, he's right. It's Rule 6.01(h)(1): "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction" Because he was obstructed before he got to first, it's an immediate dead ball, and he's awarded first base. Because the runner on first had reached second, it was reasonable to assume he'd have made third without the obstruction on the bad throw. The only problem is that the first base umpire should have killed the play immediately, which is part of what led to the confusion, because the lead runner tried to score, and then the batter got thrown out trying to go to second

[@NickRentals31]

Just a question, doesn't the batter/runner have to continue the play in order to be awarded an addition base? In this instance, the batter/runner began walking to first and didn't start running again until the ball went home. Shouldn't he have to show that, by continuing to running to second, he had intent to go to second because the ball went by the first baseman not because of the first baseman throwing the ball home? I agree the runner should have been allowed to score at home. But I think the batter/runner should have been left at first or even called out at second because he didn't advance because of the obstruction but because of the subsequent play by the first baseman. If runner should be awarded the base they would have reached without the obstruction batter/runner should have stayed at first because he had not touched first yet and that ball caromed hard off the wall and he would have easily been thrown out at second.

[@robtheredrocker]

I didn't know Kid Rock played for the Pirates

[@Darkkefka]

Didn't know that was him. Counsll went from being a rookie scoring the 1997 winning run to being a manager. Nice.

[@jmsplmr]

The fielder was making a reasonable attempt on the ball at the time of collision, no obstruction... Runner attempts to attain second on fielders throw to home. Run scores, runner out at second.

[@dave0mary]

False - the umps got it exactly correct. If you interfere with a runner's progress w/o the ball, that's obstruction. DELAYED dead ball. The runner made no attempt at 2nd until he saw the opportunity to go on his own. In this case, 2nd was NOT an awarded base. If the batter/runner would have made an immediate attempt at 2nd it would have been awarded. "The umpires place runners where they, in their judgement, would be if the obstruction hadn't taken place". The ball is still live. He, again, made no attempt - until he saw another opportunity. He therefore is trying to advance on his own.

[@zgaviation6481]

Pro interpretation is that the ball is gone, therefore not making a play, obstruction

[@MrLeeG100]

But the runner going from third did make an attempt and he scored. It should of been a run scored so the umpires got it wrong.

[@zgaviation6481]

Lee Gromen obstruction before first base is an immediate dead ball.

[@dave0mary]

Zac Grant Really? Love to see the rule reference on that one. Tick Tick Tick ...

[@andrewglinski4722]

You can tell this was an emotional moment when the police officer/security guard is crying in the dugout at 5:39

[@Ozzy_boi20]

Bro his daughter just died from Cancer Nah I’m just playing

[@PurpleLightning6was9]

Clearly you don't live somewhere where it's hot. Otherwise you'd realize that's even more of a bad joke than it already is.

[@andrewglinski4722]

PurpleLightning6was9 You obviously have no sense of humor or have ever read a joke or else you’d realize how funny my comment is

[@BTChris9]

Andrew Glinski but your comment wasn’t that funny?

[@chrisyoung4475]

@@Ozzy_boi20 you're really fucking stupid

[@TheUmpireStrikesBack]

This is just terrible umpiring. The runner should be able to score because you can't penalize the offense. The runner made it around the bases and scored legitimately. However the batter should be out on the throw to second because that obstruction should only protect him to first. The reason I say that is because that ball came back toward the first baseman and who's to say he would've beat out the throw from the first baseman to second? I can't say he would've so the obstruction only gets him first and he's then out advancing to second at his own risk. On top of all that, it was even obstruction at first. Haha. The first baseman was playing the ball and made incidental contact which means no call should've been made. This is just a terrible play all around for the umpires

[@alanhess9306]

He can't be out at second base because the ball was dead when the obstruction occurred. The umpires obviously ruled the run would not have scored had there been no obstruction. It was obstruction because once the ball gets by F3 he is no longer in the act of fielding the ball. Umpires were totally correct.

[@TheUmpireStrikesBack]

First off if you think this is actually obstruction then you're out of your mind because the fielder was attempting to catch the ball so you can't call obstruction. Since the umpire did call obstruction, the obstruction is type A which means the runner, fielder, and ball where all present at the time of obstruction which they all were. This obstruction gives the runner the next base after the one he has already obtained. He hadn't obtained any base at the time so he's awarded first but may advance to second at his own risk because obstruction is a delayed dead ball call which means the play is still live. So he should be out at second. Also since it's still a live ball, the lead runner has the right to keep running which means the run should've counted because it's a live play

[@TheUmpireStrikesBack]

I didn't address the obstruction correctly in my original comment because I was thinking Type B when it's clearly Type A

[@ryanaltfillisch7155]

If obstruction happens to a runner before he reaches first base, it's an automatic dead ball and it's up to the umpires judgement as to where the runners would have gotten if no obstruction had occurred. Since they called obstruction, they determined that Arcia wouldn't have scored without the obstruction and put him at 3rd while Perez is awarded first base correctly. I think they got the ruling after the obstruction call correct. However, I agree that I don't think obstruction should have been called in the first place as Jaso was in the act of receiving a thrown ball. Again, it's a judgement call and will never be definitively correct or wrong, but IMO they got that part wrong.

[@ryanaltfillisch7155]

Michael Heathman There is no set definition because it's all a judgment call. Just because he didn't end up with the ball doesn't mean he wasn't in the act of fielding the ball. The ball was definitely catchable, but Jaso got like 3 inches off the ground and his foot ended up hitting the ground at the same time he contacted the runner. Again, it's all a judgment call and there will be some umpires that call obstruction there and some that don't. Regardless, it was a terrible job of the umpires live during the play but they ended up getting it right when they convened based solely on the initial obstruction call.

[@jhawk889]

imo it should be 1st with the score counting, or second and third. You can't just decide to take part of the obstruction rule and part of the interference rule and combine them

[@josefino72]

You have to wear stirrups with those Pirate uniforms. Doesn’t look right. And there’s something not quite right with those hats too.

[@elitespartan5378]

josefino72 I’m a brewers fan and I still think they look fine

[@jeffpapas4602]

You should wear stirrups with every uniform like God intended.

[@milwaukeejt]

Those are retro uniforms, looking back to the Willie Stargell - We Are Family 1970s-1980s. The caps are double retro, in that the 1970s "pillbox" caps were modeled after a style hat was common in the 1880s.

[@marcdelprado5297]

The whole pirates team should be ejected for those horrible uniforms

[@slamminpamn]

Yea, they should totally like get Queer Eye in here for a total makeover. Those outfits are unfit. Whoever decided to make their clique wear those should totally be fired and possibly arrested. Oh right, this is a baseball game and not a fashion runway. So shut the fuck up and watch the game.

[@PerryCuda]

Few things scream millennial more than this comment. They won a WS in those uniforms.

[@marcdelprado5297]

Ignatius uniforms having nothing to do with winning

[@PerryCuda]

@@marcdelprado5297 but winning has everything to do with uniforms. Put a 9-22 Miami Marlins in navy pinstripes and tell me how classy those uniforms would look.

[@1301274a]

And for the fans cheering for him to be ejected on a ridiculous call.

[@jerrybynum5702]

You know what would be awesome ... if the announcement knew the difference between interference and obstruction ... and how obstruction works.

[@PurpleLightning6was9]

You're asking a lot, unfortunately. Most commentators in every spot usually know less than a diehard fan.

[@RichieNicksGaming]

@@PurpleLightning6was9 They're usually ex-players though

[@alanhess9306]

@@RichieNicksGaming There is no reason to believe they know the rules because they are ex-players.

[@RichieNicksGaming]

@@alanhess9306 Players should know the rules of the game they're playing professionally. Therefore, ex-players should still know the rules.

[@alanhess9306]

@@RichieNicksGaming I agree they should know the rules. Players think they know the rules, but they don't. Not too long ago a ten question quiz about rules was given to a number of players. The results were "less than impressive".

[@Kurgosh1]

One of two things happened. Either the runner interfered with the fielder trying to make the play, or the fielder interfered with the runner. If it's the first, he should be out, inning over. If it's the second, it's absolutely absurd to reward the fielder by taking the run off the board. Such a rule would encourage tackling a runner any time it appeared that a run might score.

[@sjlaxmac2014]

Run scores, inning over. Pretty simple to me

[@jmhydn58]

poolboy17 uhhhhh, then why did the four umpires have to consult and change the original ‘perfect’ call ?

[@Forbeszy1]

What was the ruling on the call?

[@yoonjung6657]

Was the uniform of Pirates designed by Hollister or something?

[@Billybillybillyrocking]

I think the umps call was defined by its based on where they would be if the collision didn't happen. If the first baseman just ran to get the ball instead of hitting the runner. The end play would be players on the corners. He wouldnt try for second and coming all the way from first he wouldnt try for home necessarily if the first baseman played the overthrow.

[@lshlsfoiedavid9739]

William Randall padmbasa

[@bbigjohnson069]

Interference is on a batter vs. catcher or vice-versa or on a runner against a fielder. Obstruction is on a fielder impeding a runner. They got it right unless you feel the runner could have scored from second base without the obstruction. Judgement call... Ball is dead in this situation. Can't award batter 2nd since he was not at first yet and throw didn't go into dugout etc. Obstruction When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.” (1) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without lia- bility to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruc- tion. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruc- tion, shall advance without liability to be put out. When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls “Time,”with both hands overhead. The ball is immediately dead whenthis signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flightbefore the obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners areto be awarded such bases on wild throws as they would havebeen awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where arunner was trapped between second and third and obstructedby the third baseman going into third base while the throw is inflight from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout theobstructed runner is to be awarded home base. Any other run-ners on base in this situation would also be awarded two basesfrom the base they last legally touched before obstruction

[@kckcmctcrc]

I was going to argue the opposite way until I read your post....now I'm more in agreement with you. I didn't know the particulars of the Obstruction Rule. I love baseball.

[@bbigjohnson069]

It doesn't occur very often. Although a few days ago it did in a Dodger game. Chase Utley had to alter his path to go around the first baseman. He was out at second on a close play. They called obstruction and he was awarded second base.

[@bbigjohnson069]

steve b No, that's okay. I like women.

[@jayit6851]

But obstruction isn't a dead ball in this situation.

[@alanhess9306]

Trenton Pottruff. The rule says you are wrong. Educate yourself before commenting.

[@leonmatthews2474]

I really wish commentators had at least a little sense of the rules before they start making up their own stuff or thrown out sandlot rules

[@TrailingSkies27]

As a Giants fan Counsell was a guy I never wanted to see up in a big situation. Ice in his veins.

[@mclovin9151]

huh he loooked weak out there

[@LPCardinals]

I think you put the batter at second because he would’ve made it but the announcers mentioned that Jaso would’ve also been shaken up after the collision which is the reason Arcia was able to score. Both runner and fielded were shaken up so by logic batter would’ve made it to 2nd but Jaso also would’ve gotten Arcia out.

[@jackjon7763]

OriginaLane he’s out at second because he stopped running and waited for the throw home before trying to advance. If he attempted to advance prior to the throw home it’s a different situation. The obstruction didn’t affect him since he stopped

[@Ghostrider6A]

Type A obstruction kills the whole play. Type A happens when a play is being made on a runner or prior to BR reaching 1st base.

[@imola23]

The only thing that the clueless broadcasters got right was that they "didn't understand this".

[@FactsMatter]

The umpires called Type A Obstruction because the Batter-Runner was obstructed before reaching first base. The ball is dead. Batter gets 1st. That's clear. There was no angle shown to challenge the umpires' judgement that Arcia would not have made it home, absent the obstruction. What I do know for sure is that this argument lasted way too long, and Counsell threw an unnecessary fit. No blatant rules miss here, though you can argue the judgement related to Arcia.

[@Sphere723]

Perez reaches 2nd easily on the throwing error if there is no obstruction.

[@djcatfan]

Not the way the ball bounced back.

[@tylerkiel5418]

or maybe he makes the catch without Perez right there🤔 it's a weird play. Also think Arcia was running as there's 2 outs

[@familysmith6758]

Because the ruled obstruction happened before first base, this automatically killed the play. If obstruction happens after first base it is a delayed call. This is why the batter runner was awarded first base and the runner on second was awarded 3rd.

[@24brownbess]

He was running inside the foul line, on the field, not the between the lines. Batter out for interference.

[@alanhess9306]

Sojourn .sixtysix No, totally wrong. There is no running lane violation on this play. Umpires were correct to call obstruction.

[@jacobpuhalla1404]

The batter running to first was not in the running lane so really he could have been called out, inning over.(running lane is that line right next to first base this is where you’re supposed to run to first)

[@costerhout]

The throw was up the baseline not to first base. The umpires won't call a lane violation when the defense makes a poor throw. Also, the ball was past the defender when the obstruction occurred so the umps eventually made the right call. They should have called an immediate dead ball rather than let play continue. That is what confused so many people. Once the dead ball is called the runners get at least one base beyond the last base they legally touched. Batter runner hadn't yet touched first so he got first base. The other runner had last touched second at the time of the obstruction and in the umpires opinion without the obstruction he wouldn't have made it home so they awarded him third base. In the end they finally got it right.

[@javierbarrera9805]

They don't make managers like they used to

[@pnessi570]

Well if the run that scored was at first so if youre only granting the one base to the batter, then you can only grant one to the runner. The runner may have touched second before the interference giving him third. But for it to be a consistent call they have to put the run scored back on the bases or give the batter second

[@alanhess9306]

There is no logic nor any rule that allows you to assume if you're only granting the one base to the batter, then you can only grant one to the runner.

[@richardgrace4500]

If it's a dead ball interference then would keep all the runners at the base they were at which means one at first and one at third...isnt that hard to understand 🙄🤦‍♂️

[@kennethmoaratty7893]

That ball was thrown away and the first baseman was blocking his path

[@imacrazyguy5831]

He made first. He should have stayed put but made the decision to run to second. 100% his fault, interference or not.

[@garrettrichards5559]

@Commentor1 I dont know if it's ridiculous. Rule 7.06 of the 2016 rulebook said that: "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction." It's not too unreasonable to argue that without moving 10 feet up the line and obstructing Perez, Jaso could have retrieved the errant throw quicker and thus would have limited Arcia to only 3rd base. This looks to me like the way the umpires ruled it.

[@GwresYnKernow]

Run scores, Perez out at second. The umpire's initial ruling was much better than that for the Brewers (run scores, runner at first), Counsell argued against that and got the only other possible interpretation (runner gets to stay at first and the other runner goes to third, where he would likely have ended up had the collision not occurred). Counsell realises he's fucked up, argues again to save face by at least showing the fans he's trying. and got chucked. Analyst hasn't got a clue what's going on, standard.

[@alanhess9306]

No, that is not what happened. The run did not score and the batter-runner was not out. How can you watch this video and be so wrong?

[@martinecker1041]

Perez should have been called out for interference. He was not in the running lane when contact was made. He was on the infield grass. Big miss by the officials

[@alanhess9306]

Totally wrong. The running lane is irrelevant on this play. The runner can run wherever he wishes. The runner was impeded by a fielder without the ball. Clearly obstruction. The umpires were correct.

[@gaben6803]

I guess my only question on this...isn't he to the left of the 3 ft 1st base line when the collision occurs? I don't see it called a lot but the runner was not in the 3ft base line on his way up to 1st base. By rule: "A batter is out: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;" I know I'm probably not seeing something but would like to understand why....

[@DaToyGamer]

Gabe Nighswander i don't know baseball all that well, but they said it was a non reviewable situation. The ump likely didn't notice.

[@kyleyoung996]

I agree here, except that the thrown ball was really uncatchable by the first baseman. The contact seemed completely incidental, although if it's anyone's responsibility to avoid contact at all, it should be the baserunner's. If I'm writing the rules, the play stands with the run scoring, and baserunner out at second base. Of course, I'm not writing the rules, though.

[@alanhess9306]

The running lane is irrelevant on this play because there is no way the runner interfered with the fielder taking the throw at first base.

[@sawnydawn]

So, Milwaukee gets robbed twice in one inning... I’m a Pirates fan, but this was f***ed. Jaso caused the collision at first, on what would’ve been AT LEASED a base hit, due to that throw going way over his head. Essentially, even if the collision hadn’t happened, the ball would’ve been over-thrown and Perez would’ve definitely been safe at first; possibly second. Counsell, had every reason to question this call and good on him. Good on him for having enough passion for the game, to get thrown out!

[@johnrain7308]

Summer Ellison the umpires are always right

[@alanhess9306]

@@johnrain7308 Not always, but they were completely right on this play.

[@andrewschulzsd]

Pat Murphy is a great coach to have. He's had interim managerial experience with San Diego and is very knowledgeable. Brewers were in good hands for the rest of the game.

[@ronniebishop2496]

He doesn’t have to make an effort if he’s knocked out by that girl looking player at first.

[@WisconsinRailfan22]

Damn.... Lmao

[@kelp4066]

Folks, the main thing to understand is that in Official Baseball Rules (OBR) there are two types of obstruction. In the old rule book numbering system, as some of you hinted at below, 7.06 (a) deals with obstruction involving a play on the runner, or batter runner before reaching first base. In that case it is immediate dead ball, player being played on is awarded 1 base beyond and any other runner that would be forced as a result of the awarded players advancement also moves up a base. All others, are held to last base acquired at time of the obstruction. In 7.06 (b) deals with obstruction not involving an immediate play on the offense. That is a delayed dead ball situation. FYI Federation ball (high school) there is no type a or type b obstruction. It is a hybrid. It is a delayed dead ball, but player being played on is awarded 1 base beyond and any other runner that would be forced as a result of the awarded players advancement.

[@fpod8498]

The managers should be able to request a rule check if the play is not eligible for review

[@TheUofAfan]

A manager being paid that much money should know the rules. This ruling is umpire discretion period

[@phoenixrising4573]

@@TheUofAfan then the umpire should be fired for having horrendous judgement. People who screw up their jobs regularly, get terminated, unless they officiate sports or stand for political office....

[@alanhess9306]

@@phoenixrising4573 The umpires were 100% correct.

[@TCrob]

Coaches getting in umps faces will get them kicked and possibly fined. Ump gets into coaches face? Nothing. It truly is America's game.

[@stevedandy973]

Watch it again and LOOK WHERE THE BATTER-RUNNER WAS WHEN THE COLLISION HAPPENED. He was in FAIR TERRITORY & NOT in the runner's lane. That is INTERFERENCE. The penalty for INT is: 1. Immediate DEAD BALL. 2. Batter-runner is OUT. 3. All base runners are returned to their bases at the time the INT happened.

[@Teladian2]

Steve Dandy except that he was in the lane until the first baseman came down on hum and he tried to avoid him. Obstruction is the correct call and the run should have scored.

[@stevedandy973]

4Gfoley Upon further review....Incidental contact/train wreck at 1B as the fielder is doing his job - attempting to field and errant throw. He LEAPS to his left and cannot control WHERE he comes down. play stands.

[@alanhess9306]

Steve Dandy, You are wrong. The runner was hindered by a fielder who did not have the ball. Period. Classic case of obstruction.

[@stevedandy973]

Alan Hess No, YOU are wrong. The fielder was doing his job - fielding an errant throw that drew him in to the path of the BR. Incidental contact/train wreck. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, Alan.

[@alanhess9306]

Steve, A runner may run wherever he wishes until a tag is attempted. The runner establishes his base path which is a straight line from where he is to the base (it is not a straight line between bases). In this video, the runner was headed straight to first base. The running lane usually comes into play when the ball is being thrown from the area of home plate. You will not see a runner being called out for being out of the lane on a throw from the 3rd base area. In order to call the runner out for being out of the running lane, you would have to judge the runner interfered with the first baseman making the catch. That is not what happened in the video. Rule 5.09(a) Retiring the Batter A batter is out when: (11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; I have the rule book to backme up. What do you have?

[@1162labring]

I was taught when I played as a kid you ran to first in the box on the foul side of of the line. Also taught if not and you somehow ran into fielder you are out for being out of base path. Have the rules changed and if so why is there still that running box?

[@mikey3495]

If the batter-runner interferes with the throw and prevents the first baseman from catching the ball while running outside of the running lane, then yes he's out. But, he didn't. The ball had already passed him. The collision didn't prevent the first baseman from catching the ball, so he's safe.

[@alanhess9306]

You were taught wrong.

[@RichieNicksGaming]

Wow these umps just didn't want to be questioned... first they punished the argument by revoking the run and sending him back to 3rd, then they ejected Counsell... all for legitimate complaints. Cool story, umps. Edit: I've been corrected. Please don't continue to @ me. I'm just not a person who deletes my comments because I've been proven wrong.

[@BoomerKeith1]

The didn't "punish" the argument. The run should never have counted. The umpire's judgement in this instance is correct. The runners should be at 3rd and 1st. Counsell was given more than adequate time and explanation regarding why the call was made. It's not like they ejected him in the first 5 seconds. They discussed the call with him initially and even the second time he came out of the dugout. It wasn't until he pushed the limit that he was ejected. The umpires were right in this instance (and obviously, they aren't always).

[@RichieNicksGaming]

@@BoomerKeith1 Agree to disagree then

[@andrewdowell2663]

@@BoomerKeith1 Agree with everything besides saying the run should not have counted

[@BoomerKeith1]

@@andrewdowell2663 It's up to the umpire to determine where the runners would have been had the obstruction not occurred. To say the run should have counted is to say the runner would have scored from first on what was basically an infield ground ball. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how can you determine that the runner scores from first on that hit?

[@BoomerKeith1]

@@RichieNicksGaming Can you at least give your argument for why you think the umpires were wrong? Or, rather, why you think the run should have scored? Are you saying that the run should have scored from first on an infield ground ball?

[@johncronin9540]

When obstruction occurs, after the play is over, the umpires have to make a judgment call as to where the players are placed. They are supposed to be placed where the runners would be if the obstruction hadn’t occurred. It’s a delayed dead ball. Obstruction doesn’t require intention on the fielder’s part. Even incidental contact results in obstruction being called. As for interference, the only defensive player who can cause interference is the catcher. It most frequently occurs (at the MLB level) if the catcher is so close to the plate that his glove gets hit by the batter’s bat as he is attempting to swing at the pitch. It’s pretty rare, but can happen if there is a straight attempt to steal home, and the catcher lunges forward to attempt to tag the runner.

[@alanhess9306]

John Cronin, the ball is immediately dead when the batter-runner is obstructed before he reaches first base.

[@johncronin9540]

Alan Hess I haven’t worked a game since the early 1990’s. And I am discovering that many of the rules have been tweaked since then, and especially over the last decade.

[@Darth-pv5nm]

When the first baseman came down he was on grass so interference should be on the runner

[@alanhess9306]

Darth 6598, interference on the runner? That is total nonsense.

[@yusuf-5531]

Baseball umpires love a lengthy chat

[@strongkupo]

why was it obstruction? the runner going to first was outside the box. why have a box?

[@alanhess9306]

The running lane is irrelevant on this play.

[@bradleypoehler9609]

actually the running lane is relevant. there would have been no collision had he been in the running lane. the runner should have been out.

[@brandondixon1536]

steve b he was running straight up the line like you should on a "routine" ground ball......it was an errant throw leading the first baseman in the way of the runner....totally incidental...run scores out at second inning over.....its not difficult

[@bradleypoehler9609]

Brandon Dixon take another look. He was running in fair territory. He should be in the lane in foul territory. Errant throw or not he collided with a fielder attempting to make the play on the ball in fair territory...runner is out.

[@brandondixon1536]

Bradley Poehler he was kicking chalk......there was absolutely nothing wrong with where he was running.....besides.....if he didnt take the precaution he did he would have knocked himself out along with the first baseman.....find a compilation video of guys getting thrown out at first on routine grounders....by your thinking they should all be called out because they're booking it straight up the line to try and beat the throw all the while kicking chalk the whole way......and by your logic as well right handed batter would have to run around the backside of home plate to run legally up the line....no....he takes the most direct path to the bag usually at an angle from third base side to first base foul territory....the angle he took would put him in the legal base path.....I'm sorry but the runner was not at fault here

[@corbinlindsey8319]

If you listen to the reasoning of the rule at the very end of the video.. so they are saying he would've been thrown out at home if there was. I obstruction?

[@justaguyinashed]

it's an error and immediate dead ball because of obstruction. no outs or runs because the play is dead as soon as the runner obstructed and delayed his movement at first.

[@DavidEmerling79]

You can still score runs. What if there had been a runner on 2nd instead of 1st on this play? You don't think he would've scored? Heck, the runner on FIRST easily scored - so, imagine how easily a runner on 2nd would've scored. The umpire _can_ award runners home on an obstruction play.

[@Scottie1152]

I’m amazed and impressed that more umpires don’t get their asses kicked outside of the game setting.

[@alanhess9306]

Why? For getting the call right?

[@jraymond1988]

Counsell was getting greedy imo. I think he's lucky that Perez wasn't out. And if the umpires put Perez at second, I imagine the Pirates manager (Hurdle?) would have been ejected. As a Boston fan, I could not care less about either team, and my thought when the play happens was "run should score, Perez should be at first". Let's keep in mind that Perez could have done more to avoid the collision, and Perez shouldn't have taken off for second in the first place, considering the location of the errant throw, him being hit in the collision, and his otherwise seemingly lack of speed. Perez got bailed out of two mental mistakes imo.

[@chrishirthe4162]

obviously you didn't watch the whole thing. Craig was arguing the call that Arcia didn't score

[@chrishirthe4162]

and Perez is 2nd in stolen bases for the Brewers this year after Villar.

[@jraymond1988]

Which is weird considering he only had 5 SB last year and 1 other SB in his career other than those. He sure didn't seem to show his speed there. As for not watching the whole thing, again, I'm a Boston fan. I could not give less of a fuck about either team.

[@chrishirthe4162]

lol. im a brewer fan and idk why i made a big deal of it. their play this season has been laughable. good luck to ur red sox tho. nothing but good wishes for them. they are one of my favorite teams to watch

[@jraymond1988]

No worries bro. I was a bit of a dick myself. Best of luck to the Brewers going forward. I don't think much about the NL, but I'll think of the Brew Crew. Maybe a Boston/Milwaukee World Series in a few years. lol

[@bigchuck696]

2:04 I'm just watching the guys in the background going ham on those hotdogs

[@_a5tr0_]

The whole Pittsburgh team should be ejected for wearing those terrible uniforms lol

[@AccessCode101]

How did this _game_ end?

[@bryanv21]

If you read the rules you'll see that the umpires got the call right. If the obstruction (BTW, the announcers are idiots... "interference" is not from the defense, when it comes from the defense it is always "obstruction") is on the runner that a play is being made on, the ball is dead and the runners are placed at least one base beyond the one they last had. In the batters case that would be first base, and in the other case that would be 3rd base... which is exactly what happened. You can go ahead and argue that the runner would have scored had there been no obstruction, but I'd disagree. Because if there was no obstruction at all, meaning no contact between the batter/runner and first baseman, then there's a much better chance the runner wouldn't have gone home. The umpires missed the call at first, but in the end got it right.

[@BenFourman]

Actually they got it wrong because the runner was outside of the running lanes when he collided with the fielder. He should have been called out and the other runner returned to the base he came from. Counsell got ejected for arguing a total gift. He should have stayed in the dugout and accepted it.

[@alanhess9306]

Ben's Fourman, The runner may run wherever he wishes until a tag is attempted, The running lane is irrelevant on this play. The rule states a batter-runner is out if he is not in the lane and interferes with a fielder taking the throw at first base. Tell me how the batter-runner interfered with a fielder taking the throw. The umpires were correct and you don't know the rule.

[@karenspratt6122]

CAN'T block THE base fundamentals,NO collision first baseman stepped in front of the base

[@erictrumpler9652]

The batter/runner was on the infield grass, not in the designated runners lane.....everyone missing this fact. Arguably it was the runner interfering with the fielder.

[@alanhess9306]

@@erictrumpler9652 The running lane is irrelevant on this play. The runner is free to run wherever he wishes. This is obstruction 100%.

[@Baby_Valentine]

Perez should have been out. (11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;

[@alanhess9306]

Paul, The trouble with your argument is that the runner did not interfere with F3 taking the throw. The throw was past F-3 when the collision occurred.

[@superspeed221]

The first baseman was not fielding a batted ball he was in the base path attempting to receive a throw. Collisions have been legislated against at home and second but the runner can run into a fielder on the way to third. It's obstruction because he did not have the ball

[@williamfroh8830]

What did the next batter do? What team won??? What was the final score??? Did this play affect a playoff spot?

[@jonmack5174]

Thats why theres 162 games, just move on.

[@michaelangellotti4773]

What's with the announcers? One of these guys answers his own questions at 2:32 for an arguement he'll make later.

[@Smithwelnicke]

type 1 (A) obstruction....immediate dead ball....umps got it right.

[@Andino.]

The catcher throws 120MPH to second btw😂😂😂

[@puedogg8843]

whos the gross mop head hippie at first lol

[@byWolffyyyy]

john jaso or something hes fucking trash lmao

[@tedphillips3119]

his obp says otherwise

[@bobberguy1]

This gross mop head hippie is earning 4 million dollars for the 2017 season.Look at your paycheck.

[@Ross-om1ht]

bobberguy1 you know, there ARE people who make that much money outside of things like baseball. It's unlikely, but you could be speaking to one

[@andrewschulzsd]

same question

[@BoomerKeith1]

Not sure why this showed up in my recommendations now, but the umpires made the correct call. Obstruction allows for the umpires judgement on advancing runners and in this case had there been no obstruction then the runners would have ended up at 3rd and 1st (and possibly only one runner at third). Not sure why Counsell was arguing this call.

[@drben3582]

Obstruction only affects the runner that is obstructed. It has nothing to do with the other runners on the base paths. Since it was a delayed dead ball, it was thus a live ball, and the runner at third advanced to home in a live ball scenario and scored. How can you return a runner who scored on a “defensive” obstruction? You are punishing the offense for a defensive penalty. The umpires got this play wrong.

[@BoomerKeith1]

@@drben3582 At the time the ball was called "dead", the runner had not crossed him. At that point, it becomes the umpire's decision to place the runners. Since the runner hadn't crossed home, the umpire made the correct call. Had the runner (starting from first) crossed home plate prior to the umpire declaring a dead ball then the run would have counted. This is obviously an unusual situation, and one that's I've only had to call once in 14 years. The issue stems from the first base umpire failing to call for a dead ball as soon as the play was ruled obstruction. He has the ability to continue the play through the runners motion toward the base, however, since this occurred prior to the batter/runner reaching a base, the play should have been ruled dead immediately.

[@deankirkpatrick7658]

Umpires got it correct.

[@jayit6851]

Even if there was obstruction on the play (which is arguable since the first baseball was making a play on the ball) the batter would only be entitled to first. The ball is live so the runner can still score, and the batter should be out at 2nd because he's only protected at first, anything else is at his own risk.

[@alanhess9306]

Ball is immediately dead on this play.

[@kokoken1]

Once the throw to first is wild, it's legitimate to call obstruction, but even if obstruction is called, no play is being made on the obstructed runner at that moment because the throw is already beyond first base. Therefore, nothing has happened to kill the play. The obstruction entitles the batter ONLY to first base. Because play continues, the score at the plate should count, and the batter advances past the base he's being awarded (first base) only at his own risk, so the out at second is legitimate. But the run counts.

[@alanhess9306]

No wyken, that is wrong. When a batter runner is obstructed before he reaches first base, the ball is immediately dead, and runners are awarded bases according to umpire's judgement.

[@kokoken1]

Yep, thanks, Alan. I didn't see the clause about the batter-runner's being obstructed before reaching first base.

[@mahasw777]

As usual, the umpires know the rules better than the commentators. You can disagree with the umpires' judgement, but according to the rules they should place the runners where they believe the runners would have been had there been no contact.

[@alexh715]

Just a crazy what-if. If they someome got the ball back to first before the runner, wouldn’t he be out at first? The first base ump didn’t initially motion for either interference or obstruction, and only pointed once he actually touched first base.

[@almostfm]

No, because this is a classic "Type 1" obstruction. It's an immediate dead ball, and the batter-runner is awarded at least first base.

[@tracythomas8896]

It all depends on if they are calling interference or obstruction . If they are calling interference then they have it correct if they are calling obstruction the runner scores and the runner was thrown out at second base.

[@rickhaavisto9023]

Please don’t comment if you have no idea what the grownups are talking about.

[@IAmJustSaying6]

In weird plays in the MLB, announcers rarely make any sense.

[@DarthKotEI]

So, if you’re a first baseman just run into the path when there is a runner in scoring position. The runner could get moved back on an error.

[@__dane__]

Totally incidental contact but the runner could’ve easily made it to second if he didn’t stand around like the play was dead

[@arimfshapiro7907]

Truth. Run scores, batter out at 2nd.

[@dougthegreat1808]

@poolboy17 sorry your not quite right. With obstruction, there is primary or type or secondary type b. We have here type b!

[@alanhess9306]

It is not incidental contact, it is obstruction. The umpires were correct.

[@abscooley4365]

should've showed the next at-bat

[@photographsbyal]

The umpires should have considered THIS possibility: What if the throw home beat the runner and he was out? Would that out NOT count and he'd go back to 3rd base because of the contact that happened at 1st base? Because basically, that's what they ended up with.

[@Seanster_94]

by rule this is most likely obstruction type 1 rule: "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." but it's tough because yes Jaso didn't have the ball, but the act of trying to catch the ball lead to him being in the path of Perez, the umpires by rule, made the correct call and made it a dead ball, however, given the circumstance, they should have rewarded the run and Perez should have been called out because he made the decision to go to 2nd on his own and got thrown out fair and the inning would have been over

[@almostfm]

Except that as a "Type 1" obstruction, it's an immediate dead ball, and the umpires place the runners where they believe the runners would have ended up had there been no obstruction. If you look at 3:44, the lead runner has just passed second when the obstruction occurs. Because the throw got away from Jaso, it's reasonable to say the runner would have reached third. Had the obstruction not occurred, it's unlikely he would have scored, because the collision also slowed down the fielder. And because the ball was dead when Perez tried for second, he was not liable to be put out. You could make an argument that he should have been placed at second, but I'm not sure that he actually would have gotten there had the obstruction not occured.

[@mattkaminski1900]

I love those pirate uniforms but this is a weird call I say safe at home out at second fair

[@guyfroml]

As an umpire, I can't believe I'm admitting the game commentator is absolutely correct. The call by the umpire is to have the runners advance as they would have naturally had the obstruction never happened. In this case the runner scored even with the obstruction, so it's pretty simple logic he would have scored had it not happened. Then, it's safe to say the batter-runner would have advanced to second on the overthrow.

[@alanhess9306]

As an umpire, you need further training. The ball is immediately dead when the BR is obstructed before first base.

[@KristopherBrowning]

This wasn't obstruction, going after the throw is considered fielding the ball. Non-malicious contact is not obstruction, so long as the fielder is in the act of fielding the ball. However, if this WAS obstruction, it would be type A, which means the ball would have been dead and penalties awarded with the batter receiving at least one additional base from the last he legally touched. This is the rule the announcer referenced toward the end. Baseball rules are complex.

[@alanhess9306]

Kristopher Browning, once the ball was past the fielder he was no longer in the act of fielding the throw. The runner was hindered by a fielder without the ball. This is clearly obstruction.

[@thomasbroking7943]

That's crazy i thought he gets 2nd. He was 1 ft from 1st when he got held.

[@kevinloera8362]

Counsell is a nice calm guy they must've pissed him off that day

[@Kulanae]

Judgment call. Personally, I agree with the Umps. The fielder was also hampered by the collision and could have fielded the ball quicker so you cannot assume that the runner from 3rd would have scored, or even attempted to score.

[@br9851]

I think it was wrong all the way around...if obstruction it should be 1st and 2nd, because you place runners where you think they should be. If interference then batter is out end of inning. If incidental contact then runner on first scored and batter thrown out at second 1 run scores and third out. Either way there's no scenario where they are first and third because if throw is on target batter is out, but if batter is fast enough and beats throw to 1st then its 1st and 2nd with 2 outs

[@peepianpeepian]

if the runner is not in the baseline, ... y'all need to read your rule books

[@almostfm]

Actually, you're the one who needs to read the rule book. The "baseline" is only established if there is a tag attempt being made on the runner. You appear to be confusing "baseline" with "foul line". And no, it's not interference because the runner didn't impede Jaso's ability to catch the ball. Look at it frame by frame-when the ball gets to Jaso, the runner is still six feet away.

[@michaelnoon8212]

Finally someone got it Right!!!

[@alanhess9306]

@@michaelnoon8212 Vince did not get it right, almost is right.

[@WmTRiker]

"Obstruction" is 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 key phrase here is "not in the act of fielding the ball". Clearly Jaso _was_ "in the act of fielding the ball" (or _trying_ to), so the obstruction rule does not apply here.

[@bdoc2333]

You are most very wrong! He wasn’t fielding a play....he was trying to catch a thrown ball. Fielding a ball means a batted ball.

[@WmTRiker]

@@bdoc2333 Where in the _hell_ did you pull that definition out of? Trying to catch a thrown ball IS considered "fielding the ball". From baseball-rules.com: 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." A fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball and he was not in the path before attempting to field the ball. These sound exactly like what occurred here.

[@bdoc2333]

WmTRiker no. The fielder has priority ONLY when fielding a batted ball that has not contacted another infielder. If the fielder is in the base path

[@bdoc2333]

If the fielder is in the base path without the path and impedes the runner it’s obstruction regardless of trying to catch a ball or make a play. This happens at home plate a lot for example.

[@bdoc2333]

Hold on....I goofed....kind of. Your are correct. Yes....the fielder has priory if fielding s batted ball. Yes...if trying to catch a thrown ball, he is considered “fielding a ball” but if he misses the ball and is in the basepath he is not longer fielding a ball anymore. For example, a player that dives and is then laying in the basepath. I guess in this case, it happened to quickly it would be up to the judgement of the umpires

[@bones343]

I think the most fair outcome would have been exactly what happened before the umpires interjected. The ball was thrown away, the runner from second scored. Perez only attempted to take second after he saw the play going to the plate, where he was then thrown out. Had no collision occurred, the same thing would have happened. The collision had no impact on anything.

[@Doubleknotspy]

Should have been out at second run scores. The batter was out of the base path (running lane) when collision occurred.

[@alanhess9306]

Doubleknotspy, the running lane is irrelevant on this play. The runner may run anywhere he wishes to get to first base and was hindered by a fielder without the ball. That is clearly obstruction. If you are going to call the runner out, you would have to determine that he was out of the lane AND interfered with the fielder taking the throw at first. No way did he interfere when the ball was well past the fielder when the collision occurred.

[@hualni]

Should be dead ball, runners advance 1 base. This is not rocket science. Obstruction by Jaso ends the play and runners move to the next available base. These guys should be sent down to the minors to learn the game they are supposed to be officiating.

[@AEMoreira81]

It was a dead ball. However, it's reasonable to believe that on this type of a play, a runner might try to go from 1st to 3rd, hence why the lead runner was placed at third.

[@hualni]

Dead ball means the play is over, and essentially Time is given to both teams. There cannot be anymore moves by either team. "Dead ball is a term in many ball sports in which the ball is deemed temporarily not playable, and no movement may be made with it or the players from their respective positions of significance." "In baseball, when the ball is dead, no runners may advance beyond the respective bases they are entitled to, and no runners may be put out. " ~ Baseball Field Guide: An In-Depth Illustrated Guide to the Complete Rules of Baseball by Dan Formosa, Da Capo Press; Rev Upd edition (April 7, 2008), ISBN 0-306-81653-9.

[@alanhess9306]

@@hualni Please read the rule. 6.01(h) Obstruction When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.” (1) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. So you rare totally wrong about the placement of runners.

[@mrmidnight32]

Gatta love the boo'ers in baseball. Usually the idiot drunks who just go to the game to get drunk and eat fatty foods. The reason they boo is because they don't understand wtf is going on and just need to make noise lol This was a very warranted talk and discussion.

[@darkarima]

*CK_32* It's quite appropriate that "Boo" rhymes with "Moo". People in the stands: "Moooooooo, let us get back to chewing our cud and watching other people get exercise!"

[@benzump]

I don’t understand why it seems that in MLB the coaches and announcers don’t know these rules. There wasn’t even anything confusing about this play. BR was clearly obstructed between home and First so he cannot he called out between those bases. The judgement is on where he would have made if there wasn’t obstruction. In my judgement that would be first. Play continues. Runner scores. BR thrown out at second, score the run runner out at second. Play ball

[@alanhess9306]

Adrian, when the batter-runner is obstructed before he reaches first base, the ball is immediately dead and he cannot be out at second.

[@MichaelSimmons.]

What no one seems to mention, is that the runner was running inside the line, on the field of play, when the obstruction occurred. If he had been running in the designated path to first, the obstruction would never have happened.

[@alanhess9306]

The runner may run wherever he wishes. He would only be out if he was out of the lane and interfered with the fielder taking the throw. That didn't happen. What did happen is that the runner was hindered by a fielder without the ball. That is obstruction.

[@Gwazi]

i would’ve called the guy that scored counts as a run but the batter out at second

[@alanhess9306]

You would have been wrong.

[@ashtonfarnell5616]

i havent read all these comments but, why is he not running in the designated running lane, he's in the grass on the infield? Does MLB use running lane rules?

[@alanhess9306]

Not on this play.

[@robscott8009]

I've umpired for 25 years. There was no obstruction at first...it was incidental contact. The 1st baseman had a right to be where he was because of the errant throw, and the runner was in the baseline. The play continued and the runner at 3rd scored, the runner at 1st went to second and was thrown out. That's how the play should have been ruled. Putting a runner on third made ZERO sense!

[@alanhess9306]

Rob. The throw was past the first baseman when the contact occurred. Clear obstruction.

[@darkarima]

You've umpired for 25 years, I was the league commissioner for 26 years and I say common sense should have prevailed instead of wishful thinking and/or selective interpretation. Well, unless the next commenter was God for 27 years and overrules me. XD

[@VioletDeliriums]

Pittsburgh kind of looks like little leaguers with those too long pants and the bad throw. The umpires just kind of complete the scene.

[@Tdez92]

Counsell must really be a nice guy. It took them forever to toss him.