Vlad Guerrero Awarded Home on Obstruction at Third Base in Tigers-Jays Game & Umpire Interference

3B Umpire Erich Bacchus awarded Blue Jays baserunner R2 Vlad Guerrero home, scoring a run, due to obstruction by Tigers 3B Ryan Kreidler on a ground ball past third base. On the very next play, HP Umpire Ryan Wills called umpire interference on himself. Article: www.closecalls...
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Discord: / discord
To set the scene, with two on (R1 and R2) and two on in the bottom of the 4th inning of the Detroit-Toronto game, Blue Jays batter Whit Merrifield hit a ground ball into the hole on the infield's left side, where it was fielded in a diving play by Detroit shortstop Javier Baez. With Toronto's runners off with the pitch on the hit-and-run, R2 Guerrero had to hurdle the batted ball to avoid interference, signified by 3B Umpire Bacchus' "safe" mechanic.
But when Guerrero rounded third base, he nearly collided with Tigers third baseman Kreidler, who was stuck watching Baez's diving play and thus inadvertently (but still violative of rule) obstructed Guerrero by impeding his path to home plate by forcing Guerrero to run further outside, thus making his journey home a longer one, both in distance and in travel time.
Bacchus pointed at the obstruction and after the play concluded awarded Guerrero home. Under Obstruction Type 2, Bacchus nullified the act by ruling that had obstruction not occurred, Guerrero would have scored.
Was that the correct call?
The very next play produced an umpire interference situation when, with the Blue Jays trying a double steal once again, HP Umpire Ryan Wills accidentally hindered or impeded Tigers catcher Eric Haase's attempted throw to third base. The penalty for ump interference is simply to send the runners back to the bases they came from.
Both managers were out to speak with the umpires in the 4th inning about the respective plays (Tigers manager AJ Hinch spoke with 3B Umpire Bacchus about the obstruction play at third while Blue Jays manager Jon Schneider spoke with HP Umpire Wills about the umpire interference play at home), both calls were concisely explained, and the game resumed without further incident in both cases.

[@mikestermike]

I hear "Vlad Guerrero" and "Bichette" and I think I'm in the 90's.

[@GregMcNeish]

I was at that game (incredible 9th inning rally & walk-off by the Jays), and when the second interference/obstruction was called, I had no idea what was happening. I immediately thought, "I can't wait to see this on CloseCallSports, so they can tell me what I missed."

[@visarr]

NFL referees do a pretty good job explaining a confusing penalty. Baseball should do something similar or explain it on the video board.

[@gcclassicslover7488]

...or just hire Lin and Tmac to do it since they're going to do it at some point anyway.

[@angc214]

Tigers fan here. I was watching this on TV and knew exactly what had happened. My buddy was starting to get mad and yell about Guerrero going off the baseline. I had to explain the baseline rule and obstruction rule to him.

[@CybeastID]

Basepath. Part of the rampant misunderstanding of the 3 foot rule is people conflating baseline and basepath.

[@PlatinumHowler]

I always thought there had to be contact for obstruction to be called, thanks for clearing that up for me. Even then, I don't agree with awarding Vladdy the run, I think the better call would've been to keep him at third

[@peterp2153]

You wouldn’t need contact because let’s say, fielder stands in the middle of the baseline. Player would have to run around him, l (either that or the runner IS forced to make contact by running through the runner) hence obstruction.

[@willenstice2658]

Also, intent doesn’t matter.

[@anthonylombardo1261]

I think we should make the base bigger, wouldn’t have had that problem.

[@slpguy6026]

@@PlatinumHowler that’s not the rule. The ump has to go by the rule, which is to award him the base he is going for. There is no option

[@timp8843]

The throw could’ve been up the line or a strike. Safe or out either way, but a clear path was impeded nullifying the opportunity either way

[@KWally]

I agree with obstruction, but I disagree with awarding a run. Vladdy was going to be out by a mile at home without any obstruction.

[@TheDonkeyJote]

Yeah, should have just sent him back to 3B.

[@MwD676]

Seems to me that he is out. Rule 6.01(h)(2) Comment: Under Rule 6.01(h)(2), when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call.

[@ag7898]

What dummy is complaining that this was the first time they have seen someone holding up a stop signal for review? Have they not been watching baseball for thr last 5 years?

[@jametz66]

Probably King Douche Boone😅😅😅😅😅

[@BigBear48]

There were so many people on that video yesterday commenting about it. It's like they haven't watched a game in the past 10 years.

[@micahsilverman5284]

Type B obstruction was the correct call, because when it occurred, Baez hadn't even fully secured the ball yet. I wonder if that umpire knew he didn't have to award home though. Clearly Vlad would've been out given that Baez made the throw to home accurately and with plenty of time. In my opinion, if there is any doubt at all, give the runner the base. In this case, there was no doubt, and Vlad should've gone back to third.

[@pauld7704]

I don’t think you can assume a good throw and a good tag, seems like the right call to me. That’s why I don’t like the automatic intentional walk rule, there were a fair number of bad pitches which led to runs.

[@micahsilverman5284]

@@pauld7704 A good throw was made by Baez. Watch the video again

[@pauld7704]

@@micahsilverman5284 Fair point, but it’s still a judgment call, even Hinch wasn’t too upset about it.

[@auzmo]

@@pauld7704 he might not understand the rule though, like most people dont, that awarding him the next base or any base at all isnt automatic despite the obstruction. Or perhaps he knew it wouldnt matter if he argued. It is a judgement call that wont be changed.

[@bananaland5445]

Obstruction is correct but awarding home is an awful call

[@cesarsalgadosalgado2199]

Just one question if the tigers player didn't obstruct Guerrero couldn't vlad gotten tagged out on a run down you could've easily gotten Guerrero out if you didn't obstruct him

[@user-zr6pl6nb6z]

100%

[@GT25Ump]

Poor judgment by the umpire to award home, but judgment none the less. I would hope he reviewed the play afterwards and realized that protecting him to home was taking "the short end of the stick", IMO.

[@robertbrown7470]

Was a play being made on the runner? That's the question. I give the benefit of the doubt on this to the umpire. I think the umpire knows that he would not have made home. But if has determined a play is being made on this runner, then he gets home automatically.

[@alanhess9306]

@@robertbrown7470 There was no play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction. This is clearly type 2.

[@bernier42]

For the umpire interference on the very next play, the Blue Jays broadcast pointed out a bit later that the Tigers catcher stepped on the umpire’s foot while throwing to 3B, and they concluded that THAT was the umpire interference, not relating to the throwing motion.

[@michaelfalkner1186]

That would be sufficient. Great explanation on both calls, and great application on them as well.

[@herotomillions4095]

This one doesn't makes sense to me. The catcher stepped on the umpire. The umpire didn't step on the catcher. Yet it's umpire's interference?

[@michaelfalkner1186]

@@herotomillions4095 Unintentional -- and, in fact, showing it in the same video that the other obstruction call was made actually makes it make more sense, because all the 3B was doing was preparing for a relay throw.

[@herotomillions4095]

@Michael Falkner but it's the defensive fielder that touched the ump. Not the other way around. I would get it if the ump touched the fielder. But that's not what happened. Why don't catchers just touch the ump every time there's a stolen base? If that's the logic, then the runner will always have to go back to the previous base. The catcher stepped on the ump... the ump didn't step on the catcher

[@RealRedPolitics]

@@herotomillions4095 It works the same in NFHS ruling. Since the umpire hindered an act by the fielder by having his foot stepped on, it was correctly ruled umpire interference. Same as if a catcher makes contact with the umpire when attempting a throw, umpires intereference.

[@QuovatisPS]

He was going to be out by a mile without the obstruction at the plate, and likely was going to be out in a rundown either way. He thought the ball was going to the outfield, but it didn't.

[@billbuffington3037]

Doesn't matter. Once there is interference, you don't worry about what "ifs". It was obviously interference. Now, If I was the runner I would have plowed into the 3rd baseman to make sure the ump had to call interference. If we are both on the ground, it has to be called.

[@mae2759]

Benefit of the doubt is going to go to the offense here.

[@JKGuy16]

@@billbuffington3037 The defense obstructs; the offense interferes. It may not sound like a big deal but terminology matters, especially when umpiring.

[@mph7282]

@@billbuffington3037 first, it’s obstruction, not interference. Secondly, the “what if” absolutely matters. The penalty is to nullify the obstruction. It’s not an automatic award of the next base. It’s explained in the video.

[@NBAKirkland]

​@@billbuffington3037 Did you not even watch the video? 🤦‍♂️

[@CybeastID]

The ump can't actually award 3rd on the play, I think, because of this: Rule 6.01(h)(2) Comment: Under Rule 6.01(h) (2) *when the ball is not dead on obstruction* and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire's judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, *he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out.* This is a judgment call. Since he was tagged out trying to get to home plate, the call if the award was third base should have been "OUT".

[@RealRedPolitics]

I don't at all have a problem with this. This is indeed textbook obstruction. Just to clarify for Highschool ruling purposes, there is no Type A or B obstruction. If obstruction occurs, and hinders a runner from reaching or returning to the bag, he is awarded the next base from his previously occupied base. For example, pickoff at first, 1st basemen obstructs runner, the runner is then awarded 2nd base. In regards to the judgement aspect of this call, eh I am not confident that the judgement was correct. But I don't have a problem with it, as in real time in the moment you're reacting based off your knowledge of the rules immediately.

[@theburnetts]

Definitely Type 2 obstruction but I don’t agree with the awarding of home.

[@LaneMaygren]

Correct call, incorrect awarding of Home IMO; Yes, there was obstruction, but only maybe 1 second worth; didn't really keep Guererro from keeping his speed up, just sent him a couple feet further outside; I think he would have been out at home by a mile, regardless of obstruction or not. He would have been out because he thought the ball got through the infield, which it didn't. If there would have been a semi-close play at home, then I'd enforce that obstruction award, but here I wouldn't.

[@BachBeethovenBerg]

I remember 20 years ago in the 2003 ALDS Game 3 between the Red Sox and the A’s, Oakland third baseman Eric Chavez was called for obstruction on Jason Varitek and Varitek was allowed to score. That was a type A obstruction because Varitek was caught in a rundown and on his way back to third Chavez blocked his path to third as the ball was being thrown to third, so the umpire immediately called time and awarded home to Varitek. Later in the game a type B obstruction was called on Red Sox third baseman Bill Mueller when he impeded Miguel Tejada from rounding third. However there was no play being made on Tejada when the obstruction occurred. Tejada, likely remembering the play earlier involving Chavez and Varitek, stopped part way between third and home after hearing the umpire call obstruction. However this was a huge mistake by Tejada because the ump never called time like the previous obstruction play. The Red Sox threw the ball home and Varitek ran up the line to tag Tejada out while Tejada was busy pointing back to Bill Mueller like a kid in a schoolyard. Thing is, if Tejada hadn’t stopped, and was thrown out at home on a bang bang play, he might have been awarded home due to obstruction. But because he stopped he gave himself up essentially since he was still advancing at his own peril. I just find that game fascinating as so many weird things happened.

[@TintagelEmrys]

I think Guerro would have been out, but I think it is close enough I can see giving him home. I belive the rule of thumb is to give benefit of doubt to the team that did nothing wrong. I see giving Guerrero that benefit of doubt

[@robertbrown7470]

Looked like the third baseman obstructed the runner, but did he? His path would not have been any different because of the runner hurdling the ball and his momentum. He wasn't going to cut through the inside of third base because of that. Just saying. What it looks like and what it is can be two different things. I don't think his path was obstructed by the third baseman. That was going to be his path no matter what. The runner would have made contact with the third baseman if he was in his path. But this is what I see from the replay. In real time, that's another viewpoint.

[@Samanthareneeheart1]

Type B obstruction I feel is the correct rulling.

[@alanhess9306]

It was ruled type B obstruction.

[@andreasgottlieb2758]

"Protected back to the base they came from" is actually a pretty bad wording and only strengthens the misconception that way too many people have that you can send the runner back to third in cases like this. Younshpul have said something like " the base you would have protected him to is already behind him"

[@user-zr6pl6nb6z]

Obstruction my arse. Lumbering lummox Guerrero wouldn't have made it home safely even without the Tigers third baseman there.

[@backupgoalie1007]

I am fine with it being called obstruction but put him on 3rd base. He would have been out by a mile so he only benefited by being "obstructed" in this situation.

[@mikecolie9290]

It should have been ruled Type 2 obstruction with runner reset at 3rd. Never would have been safe at home.

[@davidfly7426]

Third base umpire has seen Javier Baez play and knows that he would have absolutely spiked or launched that throw home. Vlad would have scored standing up and it wouldn’t have even been close. Therefore, I believe he correctly signaled and awarded the appropriate base. AJ Hinch is also very familiar with his terrible SS and his wildly inaccurate throwing. This is why there was no significant objection to the call. I am a Tigers fan and this is my reality.

[@stephenj9470]

Forgive me if you're being sarcastic. But we don't need a "would have," since he did throw a decent shot to home.

[@jamesmurray3948]

Mechanics wise, while the rule says let play go until no further action is possible, which is the case here, the MLBUM mechanic advises to call time during type 2 obstruction if the protected runner is tagged before he reaches his protected base.

[@rayray4192]

Most informative pst.

[@rayray4192]

Time out is proclaimed one second after runner was tagged.

[@jamesmurray3948]

@@rayray4192 Yes he called time when the protected runner was tagged which in this case also no further action was possible because it was thought it was the third out. But the MLBUM advice makes sense. If it was the second out and you allowed action to continue because they might play on other runners before calling time you might end up with a complicated situation to unravel.

[@seanmaher3401]

Yes but I don’t agree that his protected base should’ve been home. No way vlad beating that throw, he was barely rounding the base when Baez, from the infield edge, was about to throw home

[@Subangelis]

@@seanmaher3401 He doesn't have to beat the throw, just the tag, IF the catcher caught it.

[@lotklear1379]

Guerrero ran through the stop sign given by 3rd base coach due to the obstruction

[@Stryyder1]

Love it how you always show the rule language

[@cam1398]

The 2023 Detroit Tiger roster in an improved AL central has the very real real potential of breaking modern MLB worst team records. Yes, the A's are bad, but they are competing in the AL West. Tigers GM made a mockery of fan base in off-season, adding nothing but AA/AAA players, never seen a more profound effort to tank to rock bottom. Sorry, but watching the Ilitch Circus drag around their oldest elephant for one last farewell tour is rather pathetic.

[@teebob21]

Textbook OBS. The SS was sitting on his keister after stopping the ball at the moment of obstruction. Vlad Jr is fast. Whether one agrees with the judgment call, I'm 50/50 on the award of home and probably would have awarded 3B, but I'm OK with the call on the field. We can neither assume the spectacular (a perfect throw to home by a fielder sitting on his butt facing the left-field fence) nor reward the defense for their violation. Nullifying the OBS with an award of home is perfectly satisfactory call.

[@jtrjtr5393]

Lol, 2 seconds on ump interference.

[@duffyy1]

Tigers are such a bad team.

[@SchillerDuval]

I like how the infielders are all standing around shrugging after the play. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

[@ryantalcott3733]

Idk. I'd pbly call it like that in real time, cuz he cant see the contact from his pov, but in replay, looked like a normal route for a runner rounding 3rd.

[@stephenj9470]

A little thing, but can you move the subscription button to a different area at the end? It blocks the very replay that is shown when the button comes up.

[@jacobrichardson1952]

What did I just watch? 🤣

[@93-b]

Appreciate this breakdown. We saw this on the game and I was immediately like, “can’t wait for the Close Call Sports analysis of this one!”

[@richardschnell4842]

So it makes no difference that Mr. Guerrero elected to run way (WAY) out of the base path?

[@tmlms1313]

Baserunner makes his own basepath. The 3 foot thing only applies for when the defense is attempting to tag him.

[@RealRedPolitics]

His path was altered because of the location of the fielder which is why Obstruction was (correctly) called here.

[@kendog52361]

I do agree that it was Type II on the interference, and even though it's irrelevant, I do think it was inadvertent by the defensive player, since he seemed to be trying to get out of the way, unfortunately he seemed to expect Vlad to go in front of him, instead of behind him, hence him backing up. As for awarding Vlad Home Plate, that I have a bigger problem with, because I question whether Vlad would have made it home, without that Interference. I think he would have either "retreated" to 3rd or gotten into a Play at the Plate.

[@sdmagician76]

When the ball is hit the camera pans to left field. For the time he is on screen the pitcher does not move off the mound. So I'm thinking on a ball hit to the outfield the 3rd baseman backs up home plate on the throw, the SS covers 3rd, and the 1st baseman stay at 1st to hold the batter there. It looks like the 3rd baseman overruns 3rd towards home to get in position, looks back, sees the SS made the play, and stops to get back to 3rd to cover the base. Unfortunately the spot he stops at to shift his momentum back to 3rd also happens to be right where Vlad decides his trajectory around 3rd will take him. Also, at least in real time, Vlad doesn't even look impeded, but maybe he had to make his turn wider. But just around the moment he passes the 3rd baseman the 3rd base coach is telling him to get back to 3rd. If he just stops and goes back, he's probably safe. I mean, the 3rd base coach's hand signaling STOP basically slaps Vlad in the face, but yet he still is halfway down the line before he stops and then he doesn't even try to get back to 3rd and is tagged out. If I was the ump, I probably would called Vlad safe at 3rd instead of awarding him home at which he would have been out by a lot with the good throw, even without being impeded.

[@Kirkshelton]

I thought the same thing. Once the 3rd baseman realizes what's going on he tries to move out of the way but the runner went the same way. Sucks for them.

[@robertbrown7470]

Were they making a play on this runner? If Yes, it is an automatic base award. I suspect that is what the ruling was even though the umpire didn't immediately call time and stop play. It's obvious he would not have made it home even with the obstruction.

[@alanhess9306]

@@robertbrown7470 It was type 2 obstruction.

[@SLC-Smudge42]

Yeah not sure I agree with the award of home but otherwise great call by Erich.

[@herotomillions4095]

I called this as soon as it happened. Vladdy was forced to make a wider turn. Think about it this way, if Vlad didn't make that wider turn, he would've smashed into the third baseman. In which case, he would've been awarded home. Had Vlad stopped at third, it would've been a different story. But Vlad made the attempt to score. There's no way anyone can assume the out had Vlad not made a wider turn

[@SLC-Smudge42]

@@herotomillions4095 I see what you’re saying. I think the thing for me is how natural Vlad’s strides were from the time he leaped over the batted ball to after he rounded the bag. It all looked very natural (meaning he didn’t obviously deviate his path because of the fielder.) The wide route he took around the bag was almost certainly because of the leap over the ball and the few steps it will always take to get your momentum back in sync. I guess this is why judgment calls can’t be reviewed. They aren’t so black and white! With that said, I still think it was a great call because it was obstruction by the book yet no one would have likely made any bones about it if he hadn’t called it….. except for probably us! 😂😂

[@alanhess9306]

​@@herotomillions4095 Smashing into the third baseman does not necessarily mean he would've been awarded home since this was type 2 obstruction.

[@finessecurve2651]

Definitely not an award home situation

[@juansalazar2382]

La ubicación del tercera base sin tener posesión de la pelota, sin estar recibiendo un tiro o sin estar intentando atrapar una pelota, estorba el avance del corredor hacia el plato que tiene la intención genuina de anotar; como dicha situación se da sobre una pelota bateada que no está cerca de la jugada se trata de una obstrucción con la pelota viva y en juego

[@HingedWatch]

I'm a little unclear on type B obstruction--had the umpire decided Vlad doesn't deserve home, is he declared out, or is he placed at 3rd base? Is a runner ever called out on type B obstruction? If so, when?

[@martinradosevicjr5860]

I want clarification on that too.

[@seanmaher3401]

Yes. Blue believed that vlad had a solid shot at home had there been no obstruction. So he allowed him to be protected up to home, nullifying the tag. I don’t believe he had a shot with or without obst since Baez made that play and still in the infield. In that case you call obstruction, but only deem that with or without it that he would’ve only had 3rd base, and since play continued beyond his protected base he would be out. In the actual case in the video, he deemed the protected base should be home plate. Just like if there’s obstruction when a guy hits a double, bumps into 1stBM rounding and trips up, rounds 2nd to go to 3rd (may be in umps judgment the protected base), then a wild throw happens to send him, gets tag out, is out. The goal of the obstruction rules is to nullify the act of obstruction, not just award the next base.

[@mptr1783]

the runner in this scenario is protected(can't be called out) between 3b and home. IMO, its obstruction, but Vlad shouldve been awarded 3b. This looked like an umpire who was so excited that he got a goofy play that he probably over reacted and gave him home

[@ericwildfong]

Runners are protected to the base which in the umpire's judgment they would of reached without the obstruction for Type B. If say a runner gets protected to 2nd but for whatever reason he decides to try for 3rd. He's allowed to advance at his own risk but in exchange, he loses his protection in a sense and could be put out. I could be wrong since it's been a number of years since I've looked closely at the rule but it's kind of all umpire judgement

[@ericwildfong]

@@seanmaher3401 Your analysis of the play kind of banks on Baez still making the throw but it's hard to tell where Vlad would of ended up had he not been impeded and as such if the throw to the catcher would of been true and stuff. Not saying Vlad should of been given home on the play, but evidently, U3 felt like he should.

[@austinneveau9387]

put simply, don't stand in the runners path lol. what happened has happened. if the tigers were a half decent baseball team that call would never happen. they obstructed and got penalized for it. as for awarding him home plate? completely justified. he wasn't impeding his path to 3rd. I look at it as him directly obstructing the path to home. that's just a terrible spot to be in for the 3rd basemen. skill issue.

[@austinneveau9387]

also what if the precedent was made for it to be safe on 3rd instead? will we see other teams impede and obstruct the path to home to send that runner back to 3rd as a strategy? the call here makes sense and let's players know they'll be penalized for obstruction. "oh gee it cost the tigers a run and maybe a game". yeah im sure the 2 Detroit fans care a whole lot about their team winning their 3rd game of the year.

[@douglasiles2024]

The umpire made the right call by letting the play continue, to see if Guerrero would have made it home safely, thus nullifying the need to call obstruction. Once he was tagged out, the correct call was made to award him home. I think if Vlad hadn't tried for home but merely made his turn and then got tagged out trying to get back to 3rd, the umpire would have called him safe at 3rd because of obstruction. However, because he attempted to advance to home, he was awarded home because of the obstruction.

[@alanhess9306]

The rule requires the ball to stay live, there is no reason to call time. The 3rd base umpire immediately called obstruction when it happened. Umpires don't wait to see the result of the play before making the call.

[@westcoastflyers144]

I guess he ruled type B, but could it not have been A? Baez had fielded the ball at the time of obstruction. Once again, probably just a judgment but I think it could go either way. That would explain awarding home at least. Although, if that is the case, the mechanics were wrong.

[@almostfm]

No, because it has to be during an active play on a runner. Fielding the ball doesn't count as a active play on the runner.

[@anthonyesposito7]

But the third base coach can obscure though I don't know if that is what they call it in that case but yea if the coach or the player touch each other going around the base that is an out. This happened in a game a few years back involving Toronto I believe too. I think it was MIchael Young.

[@anthonyesposito7]

@Dave J yea but that is what happened in the play I remember. It think. They called it an assist but it was clearly not meant to be they just more or less were about to run into each other and ended up touching hands. So yea like I said I don't think they call it obstruction the same way that a player can obstruct by just being in the way sure.

[@TrueTrueBehemoth]

I'll trust the professional on the type of obstruction that was but I don't think anyone in MLB is safe at home on that play. 3rd base coach is trying to signal him to stop

[@kevwwong]

Rivera threw up the "stop" sign (no, really, he knows signals other than windmilling people home) after Vladdy started towards home, but I think Vladdy would've blown through the stop sign regardless, since he couldn't see that Baez fielded the ball. At the end of the day, I think Vladdy was DOA at the plate regardless of the obstruction.

[@pumpkinhill4570]

Since play continued we can see the throw was made accurately. I guess by the rules they should have called him out anyway. Interesting video.

[@seanmaher3401]

Yes and no. I agree that Vlad should not have been awarded home. But since in the umpires judgement he would’ve had a good shot to make it, by rule umpires call was correct. His judgement was not

[@leonmatthewsiv1699]

Personally, I would have him at third. Had there NOT been obstruction he would have been a sitting duck at home. Umpire interference. In 17 years of umpiring I have had this happen to me once. Rare, but it could, and does happen.

[@anthonylombardo1261]

Can someone explain why vlad got the call when he was out of the baseline, and foul territory when he was obstructed. There’s no play to be obstructed, the fielder was approached by a runner in foul territory away from the ball. Fielder is in his position’s positioning, runner is not in the base path. Why?

[@CybeastID]

The basepath is not established until an active tag play is being attempted on the runner. The basepath is a straight line from the runner to their next base, that is established the moment a tag play is being attempted. The baseline is irrelevant to the 3 foot rule, and the 3 foot rule ONLY applies when an tag is *actively being attempted on the runner.*

[@sreed24]

Runners are entitled to establish their own baseline. Any runner rounding third naturally goes into foul territory because of his momentum; the fielder is obligated to avoid his path. If you have the impression that the baseline is defined only by the chalk or as a direct line between bases, you are mistaken. Think of a runner rounding first; he typically goes several feet away from a direct line between first and second, but the 1b must say out of his path.

[@CybeastID]

5.09(b) Retiring a Runner A runner is out when: (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. **A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely.**

[@CybeastID]

@@sreed24 No, you are incorrect, but only in terms of terminology. The *baseline* is defined as a straight line from base to base. The *basepath* is defined as a straight line from the runner's current position to the next base, and it is only defined when a tag attempt is being made on them.

[@anthonylombardo1261]

@@CybeastID would a strategy ever make sense to then aim for the fielder when rounding any base, if you fear as if the outfielder, or infielder, could throw you out at the next base? You would need to know you are a dead duck and would need to react before you get into a pickle, but wouldn’t that make you get an interference call? Even if there’s no contact AND the fielder attempts to move out the way, wouldn’t you still get the call?

[@rc24caldwell19]

Jays' fan here....basically a gift here from the 3B ump. It was definitely obstruction, but Vladdy would have been out by a mile (a KM?) either way. He guessed the ball was going to the OF, and guessed wrong. He should have been placed at 3rd, no doubt about it.

[@thatguy5477]

Yankees fan here... Vlad made the turn which means he's making an attempt to score. The obstruction happened between third and home. You can never assume the out. It was the right call

[@alanhess9306]

@@thatguy5477 The runner making an attempt to advance has nothing to with determining which base would have been awarded if there was no obstruction.

[@Jewdacus]

I hope someone can answer these questions. 1- Is this an RBI since the umpire thinks he would have scored? 2- Is there an error on the 3B? 3- What if the ump (as do I) feel he would have been out at home? You can't give an out, right? Or do you just think he goes back to 3rd?

[@robertbrown7470]

If it's type 2 obstruction where the defense is not making a play on the runner, yes he could be tagged out. But I don't think this is the case. They were making a play on this runner. If the runner kept going to home and was obviously out by 10 feet and the obstruction only caused him to miss a step or tow, then he would be out IF they were not making a play on the runner.

[@alanhess9306]

@@robertbrown7470 How can you say they were making a play on the runner when the ball was in the outfield when the obstruction occurred? This is type 2 obstruction.

[@alvinthecat8426]

The runner would not have made it, he stopped. Vlad did not know that interference was called or did he? He stopped and was trying to get back to third. Should have been awarded 3rd base, that's it.

[@ericwildfong]

He might of. I believe part of the mechanics for calling obstruction in addition to pointing is verbally saying "That's Obstruction". Whether the verbal part of the mechanic transfers to the MLB I'm not sure, but you can't always rely on people seeing your hands so it likely did. Should he have stopped? Probably not, Should he have been awarded home? Also possibly not.

[@alvinthecat8426]

@@ericwildfong Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

[@trumprocks2779]

Great call!

[@michaelsmiley15]

Basically if you use the correct terminology it's interference or obstruction you can use both for it doesn't matter they both be the same thing the third bass player was in the way of the running Lane of incoming runner you can't do that

[@rayray4192]

Absolutely everything you posted is error.

[@rayray4192]

There is no running lane in this case play.

[@totallykoolyeah]

Bad running, bad defending ..good calls

[@affemitwaffe9057]

I'd argue that the momentum of the jump would taken him to the more distant path anyway. He would not have made it to home plate. Imstead he should have stopped at third.

[@dennis_burgess]

Weak

[@robertmatthews4285]

I’ve watched this many times. I’ve tried to see where the runner alters his path to avoid the third baseman and I just don’t see it. I see the runner recovering from the hurdle and continuing on the path he was already committed to. His approach to third was flat for an attempt to round for home which means he was going wide even if he didn’t have to hurdle the ball. The hurdle just drove him wider. Respectfully, I think this analysis is wrong.

[@jametz66]

OK. So, ...no, ...there's no way VG makes it home if OBS doesn't happen. So, for OBR, wouldn't this correct call be giving VG third?

[@ericweeks8386]

I think it'd have been a close play at the plate. And since the "offense" was against the defense, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the team who was victimized.

[@jametz66]

@Eric Weeks ...but...based on the rule and video, obr can send the runner to the last base occupied, which would make sense in this situation

[@LindsayImber1]

That's what I would have done.

[@ericweeks8386]

@@jametz66 He could have sent him back, but I think the chance of him scoring was high enough, that the ump felt awarding home was the way to go.

[@jametz66]

@Eric Weeks ..no way in hell....the ball never left the infield....he would have been out by 30 plus feet

[@jonathancervantesrodriguez9076]

Give a beer to that base ampayer , he was good on those calls..

[@thatguy5477]

The second call was wrong

[@bigpoppa1234]

Your explanation at 2:57 isn't actually from the rulebook (at least as far as I could tell) when it's inclusion would offer more insight in what the call should be. The rulebook says what in my opinion makes this decision to award home plate wrong (even if the call of obstruction was correct). The rule 6.01 (h) from the MLB rules says "The umpire shall then call Time and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction". The key bit there being "if any". In my opinion the act of obstruction while callable, was not significant enough to require "nullification" because of the poor decision of the runner to continue to home. He was going to be out by a mile no matter if he kept going for home or if he turned around. The rules do not require a penalty be imposed due to the "if any" clause, and therefore the call the obstruction is correct, but not the award. Runner is out as they weren't going to be safe even if the obstruction hadn't occured. Suggestion, perhaps a rules revamp that adjusts the wording to remove the "if any" and simply mandates the punishment as all players are safe and are awarded their next base while the umpire may impose additional base awards/place all runners further for egregious violations where a runner was prevented from advancing multiple bases.

[@Gordonzolar]

thank you, exactly what I was thinking too. Its the correct call to signal the obstruction, it is not the correct call however to award him home or third since he would have been out even without the obstruction.

[@TheMonsterbed75]

vlad got lucky 😆

[@marimbaguy715]

I don't think the umpire should have awarded Guerrero anything. In my opinion, he wasn't impeded enough to make a significant impact on the play at home, nor did it affect his ability to get back to third quickly. I think the out should have stood, even though he was obstructed.

[@CybeastID]

It very much did impede his ability to get back to third, he took an extremely wide turn around the base.

[@joshnaudi]

Would Vlad have made it? We'll never know since he was obstructed.

[@visarr]

Very true. But one can hazard a guess. And the umpire definitely needs to either guess or assume. I think he would have been thrown out. But, I'm no umpire!

[@joshnaudi]

@@visarr There is some butterfly effect to it. If Vlad makes a good turn and is moving down the line and closer to home, it requires a better (more accurate and faster) throw from the SS. There is also a benefit of doubt element to the call. My question is, if Vladdy goes unobstructed towards home 10 times, does he get thrown out 10 times. imo the answer is no even if I think 9 out 10 times he gets hosed. So as an umpire, when I make a judgment call and award a base based on all of that information and the coach tells me, "There is no way he would have been safe." I always respond, "We'll never know since he was obstructed"

[@visarr]

@@joshnaudi I appreciate the POV of an umpire. Before this channel, I really never thought to step in their (your) shoes. Thanks.

[@donh6416]

Any chance you can give us an update on MLB umpire Larry Vanover who was struck by a thrown ball in the head?

[@SidEffecT883]

I can’t believe I’m about to say this but..Great call by the Ump! 2 right calls on one play to be exact. Ryan Kreidler was clearly in the way of Guerrero Jr. No ejections either I couldn’t believe it. Why? Because it was a good call and Hinch knew it. This is what happens when umpires actually do their job right. Just think if these guys actually started making correct calls more often and even went as far as admitting when they’re wrong. These games would probably fly by, ejections surely would go down..not to mention the amount of respect umps would gain. Just thought I’d throw that out there..

[@1969EType]

As they used to say on the old Bartles & Jaymes wine cooler commercials..."Thank you...and we appreciate your support."

[@jared4720]

First View!!!!

[@tubes-lut]

50/50

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

Without obstruction he keeps running and he's out at home by 20 feet, so i don't see how this was the correct call.

[@johnholmes8919]

oh my god you sided with the umps again what a surprise he would have been out at home its just a judgement call

[@worldsedge4991]

Judgement call: Without interference, the play at the plate would have been very close. Realistically, it could have gone either way. However, the runner's actions following this point, getting to the plate quickly and sliding in, would have been far simpler than the defensive players' actions needed to make the play, outfielder recovering his feet, throwing quickly and accurately, and the catcher catching cleanly and applying the tag. Given the difference in complexity of the necessary plays, it is reasonable to judge that the offensive play was more likely to succeed than the defensive play.

[@robertbrown7470]

The fact that the umpire didn't immediately call time doesn't change whether it's type 1 or type 2 obstruction. It is what it is. If it's type 1 and the umpire failed to call time immediately, oh well. The correct call is going to be made. No crying over spilled milk.

[@alanhess9306]

If it is type 1 obstruction, time should be immediately called. If it is type 2 obstruction, time should not be called until the play is over.

[@Blt-rr2lm]

Vlad cut the corner fast and his momentum took him around the third baseman. No obstruction.

[@alanhess9306]

Vlad went wider around third base to avoid the fielder. That is clear obstruction.

[@zachansen8293]

He was clearly TRYING to go home so if you impede him it means you thought he would without the impeding. So I don't see any other option but to give him home. He wasn't trying to get to third when the interference happened.

[@bananaland5445]

Would’ve been out by a mile. He doesn’t just get home because he was going there

[@user-zr6pl6nb6z]

@@bananaland5445 100% The old lady who lives in my building and rides around in a wheelchair moves faster than Guerrero.

[@robertbrown7470]

I think the big question is whether a play was being made on the runner.

[@alanhess9306]

No, there was no play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction.

[@jackoujo]

It was an obvious obstruction, but I think the runner could be held at 3b. Why? Watch the 3b coach and notice how he is trying to hold up the runner. I believe the runner would have been out by 30 feet. In order to keep the runner at 3b, you have to be 100% sure he would not have scored and that is what I believe. Again, great call, great sell of the call. I think he should have stayed at 3b though.

[@mae2759]

Benefit of the doubt will go to the offense here. Good point, but I agree with the award of home.

[@jackoujo]

@@mae2759 I get what you are saying. Take a look at the body language of the 3B Coach when the runner goes through the stop sign. Again, you do not want to reward the third baseman for the obstruction, but the baserunner was pretty stupid to even try. I am surprised the Manager did not make this point, but he probably does not know the rules.

[@ericbowles6606]

32 definitely backed up to obstruct the runner

[@roscoefoofoo]

Chief Wiggum on the mic!

[@alexe1707]

Is it because that would have been the 3rd out that the play was called dead?

[@CybeastID]

It wasn't called dead. The play concluded, but then time was called.

[@alexe1707]

@@CybeastID it was called dead on the tag

[@AaronBish]

Wasn't Guerrero already out, due to being out of the baseline before the interference happened?

[@CybeastID]

"Out of the basepath" is a call that requires an *active tag play* to be occurring. Once such a play begins, the basepath is defined as a straight line from the runner's current position to the next base. Until such a tag attempt is being made, the basepath does not exist and the runner cannot be called out for deviating from it.

[@M747022]

100% no

[@CybeastID]

@Frater Zero Here, have a rules citation. OBR 5.09 Making an Out (b) Retiring a Runner A runner is out when: (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path *to avoid being tagged* unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. *A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs* and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely.

[@teebob21]

No. Learn the rule.

[@AaronBish]

@@CybeastID Cool. I'd see the first part of that rule, but not the interference part.

[@legalizeweed3830]

The catcher stepped on the umpires foot. That isn't umpire interference. Bad call.

[@alanhess9306]

Yes, it is umpire interference. It is the same as when the catcher attempts to throw and his hand hits the umpire.