What? He's called out? Why?

Рет қаралды 17,177

Жыл бұрын

Understanding Obstruction Type B in baseball. Why they got the call correct.
Little League World Series - example of obstruction rules. Also included are High School obstruction rules, travel ball, younger ages and what to look for and how to apply the rules correctly.

Пікірлер: 135

@MagSeven7 Жыл бұрын

Interesting comment at the end of this video "the umpire has to see it to call it". This can be said at almost every game when you're calling a game alone. Just this week I called a game alone and with the bases loaded, on a passed ball the runner from third scored. Immediately one of the 3 coaches on the field screamed "he lef early". He continued to vent his frustration asking me how I missed it. I reponded by telling him I was calling the pitch. To me, obstruction or interference can be a difficult call to make even with two umpires when bases are loaded or there is lots of action taking place. If you happen to be looking at that particular runner it's easy. That's not often the case though. I love these videos. Thanks for posting.

@MaydayAggro 10 ай бұрын

You had me at "a game alone with bases loaded."

@stephenherring 8 ай бұрын

About 10 years ago I had almost the exact same thing happen in an NCAA softball game and we called the runner out because (according to the NCAA rule book editor) the runner would have been out regardless of the obstruction. So this is a good and fair call.

@edalovrich Жыл бұрын

In the first clip (the HS game), as an umpire I do not have obstruction. This is because, in my judgment the runner actually reached out and hooked the fielder (perhaps trying to get the obstruction call?)

@119Agent Жыл бұрын

That is definitely what happened and why the rule accounts for that exact situation.

@gabe9346 Жыл бұрын

The runner clearly had to slow down and adjust his path rounding the base, otherwise he would've fully collided with the shortstop.

@CV1989Colt 11 ай бұрын

As a college and HS umpire I do have obstruction here. The reach out is more protective than intentional to draw a call. The SS was in his path to round the base and the runner would have been obstructed without. In my judgment that reach was to stop himself from running into the fielder harder.

@charliegarnett9757 10 ай бұрын

Agree…no obstruction

@nmaikowski8013 10 ай бұрын

when the fielder made a hope to the side last second and then made contact its obstruction. That runner is running and cant make last second left or right. he did not know what move the fielder was going to mad. Making the contact as a runner was a smart move so the umpire saw the obstruction. Runner gets a base

@davej3781 Жыл бұрын

1:44 - yep, in high school I'm not calling obstruction on that; it barely warrants a call in any ruleset, but in sensible rulesets you can go ahead and call it just in case (completely leaving aside that it looks like the runner might've been trying to draw a call)

@critter2 3 ай бұрын

i wouldn't of either that ruling was ludcirous

@djrose3183 Жыл бұрын

Appreciate your content - a note: Little League does not have an “in the act of receiving the throw” clause in OBS like our friends in MLB. The Little League rule is much more black and white: “without possession of the ball.” You either have the ball, or you don’t!

@Danification9 Жыл бұрын

Under OBR, only one fielder gets protection to field a batted ball with regards to interference. In this case, it is clearly the second baseman, so the collision with the shortstop should be called obstruction. That said, there is no minimum base award for obstruction. It is simply where the umpire believes he would have made it had the obstruction not occurred. I think it's hard to argue that the obstruction was the difference maker in the runner getting thrown out at third by that much, so I think out is still the correct call.

@garygemmell3488 Жыл бұрын

Wrong. In OBR, which LL uses, an obstructed runner is awarded at least one base past the last base he legally occupied. 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. The runner at second base was obstructed. He is awarded third base. Case closed.

@mse326 Жыл бұрын

@@garygemmell3488 That's type 1 obstruction. This was type 2 because there wasn't a play being made on him when the obstruction occurred so he isn't guaranteed a base

@TheDjcarter1966 Жыл бұрын

@@mse326 The argument isn't on obstruction just the penalty there was 100% obstruction given 2B is the protected fielder...LL has a weird application that allows outs to still be called at the next base...in OBR there is no scenario where the obstructed runner can be called out at the NEXT base he is protected HOWEVER any base beyond the protected next base is a judgment call by the umpire

@mse326 Жыл бұрын

@@TheDjcarter1966 That is flat wrong (2) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call "Time" and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction. If in the umpires judgement he'd be out anyway then he is out because there is nothing to nullify.

@Danification9 Жыл бұрын

@@mse326 Correct, the important phrase is "if any". And as you pointed out earlier, this is NOT type 1 obstruction, so there is no automatic award of the next base.

@MaydayAggro 10 ай бұрын

On the LL website, the video example of obstruction is a kid who has to slightly alter his path around the first baseman who is standing on first and then is thrown out at second by four steps. If he's called safe, this runner should be too.

@KevinQuinn81 Жыл бұрын

At first, i had interference since the fielder is protected on a batted ball. But right before the announcer mentioned it, I noticed that F6, who collided with R2, was not likely to get to the ball either way and that it was, in fact, F4's ball so I now have Type B Obstruction by F6 on R2 but I also don't see a scenario that R2 beats the throw from F4 to F5 so I still have an out on the force because nullifying the obstruction, in my opinion, still creates an out (albeit a closer one) at 3rd.

@CookieJarBandits Жыл бұрын

The only justification for awarding 3b here would be that without the obstruction, it would be highly unlikely for F4 to attempt to get R2 out at 3rd. (Reasoning would be: there never would have been a throw to 3B without the obstruction.) The 4-5 force out is one of the rarest infield outs- for a reason. That said, I don't think that is enough because in addition to the obstruction, the very poor read by R2 makes it possible that even without the Obstruction, F4 follows his momentum and attempts the throw to 3rd rather than taking a couple steps to try and beat the runner at 2nd base. Just because 4-5 is rare, doesn't mean it never happens. My general rule of thumb is to give the benefit of the doubt to the team that did not commit the offense, and I wouldn't have a huge issue with an umpire awarding 3B based on the reasoning above- but I just don't get there myself.

@kevindeadder Жыл бұрын

How do we get in direct contact with you? I want to ask you various questions. With your background, I'm very intrigued in what I will learn Kevin D

@michaelmack9376 Ай бұрын

The third base umpire definitely saw it. He used an old school obstruction mechanic by holding out his left arm. In HS rules, this would have been a third base award for sure. In LL/OBS, since this is type B / type 2 obstruction, the runner can still be called out at third if the umpires believe the obstruction had no material impact on the play. I guess they could have called it interference, since the shortstop was charging the ball, but I think that's a stretch since it clearly was the 2nd baseman's ball. Only one fielder can be in the act of fielding a ball, and to claim it was the SS in this case just isn't feasible.

@walkingtheemmausroad4216 Жыл бұрын

For LL, as an umpire - I definitely have the obstruction, protecting the 2nd baseman fielding while protecting the runner with the SS. I do still have the out at 3B because even with the obstruction, because R2 held for the ball to drop, in my judgement, even without the obstruction I dont think he makes it to 3B, so if ball caught, I have runner protected back to 2B. Good call on umpire crew, good double check to the monitor, tho wasnt necessary. If asked by Manager I'm explaining this exact situation. Yes, there was obstruction, because runner tagged, I am not protecting him to third.

@kricestophercook3841 Жыл бұрын

You dont have that luxury---"not thinking he would have made it..."---Obstruction is obstruction. We don't know if F4is gonna field it clean,make a good throw, or if F5 is even gonna catch the ball. What if that, or all of that happens, and suddenly, its a banger. YOu still getting the out? Never use the reasoning of, "Coach I didn't think your runner was gonna make it.....Because a coach worth his salt is gonna run the same list at you that I just did.

@walkingtheemmausroad4216 11 ай бұрын

@@kricestophercook3841 Read the LL rulebook - Obstruction is not an automatic award. You protect the runner to a point and they can then advance at their own peril.

@isaiahrosner3780 11 ай бұрын

@@kricestophercook3841 You do have that luxury. It is obstruction, and no awarding of a base.

@isaiahrosner3780 11 ай бұрын

@@kricestophercook3841 Also, go to 5:20. He explains this well.

@MaydayAggro 10 ай бұрын

Where do the rules state that the runner may be called out if he would have been out anyway?

@hoff9932 Жыл бұрын

Hey man respect to the little league umpire for being able to check the situation on a video review lol

@walkingtheemmausroad4216 Жыл бұрын

On the 1B obstruction, I'm always pointing it, because I want the coaches to know I saw it. There may be nothing to award, but I want everyone to know I'm doing my job and I know it happened.

@wraithleader012 Жыл бұрын

First we determine if there's interference, obstruction, or nothing. We have contact between R2 and F6, so nothing can be ruled out immediately. There is the potential that an umpire may determine that F6 is the fielder that should be protected as they are deemed to be fielding the batted ball; if that was the case you'd have R2 out for interference, BR awarded first and R1 awarded second as a result of being forced, otherwise no runners would be allowed to advance from the bases they started at. (Regardless of the interference/obstruction call, I see no way anyone could rule that there was an intentional act by R2 to prevent a double play, so no possibility of a second out on the play.) While there is no requirement that the protected fielder on a batted ball be the fielder closest to the ball at the time of any incident, its not an unreasonable factor to use in a determination. Given the direction the ball is travelling and the relative positions of the fielders, I think its likely most people would determine that F4 and not F6 was the proper fielder to be protected, and therefore no interference. Since F6 was neither in possession of nor in the act of fielding the ball, and R2's progress was hindered by F6, we have obstruction. As no play was being made on R2 at the time of the obstruction (and it wasn't BR obstructed before reaching first) we leave the ball in play and wait for the play to be over before determining what if any penalties to apply. F4 throws to F5 for the force out at third on R2. (Note that this is a play being made on the obstructed runner, but the obstruction has already occurred when the play is made, so the ball remains live.) R2 is initially out, but the impact of the obstruction must now be determined. The distance by which R2 was short of third when F5 tagged the base was greater than the distance R2 would have achieved if the obstruction had not occurred, therefore R2 is out without further reference to the obstruction. While I agree that if R2 had not been forced that the play changes, I disagree that R2 would be "automatically" protected to third. Removing the force potentially changes the play that F4 makes, with two likely possibilities being that they chase R2 towards third, possibly leading to a rundown play, or merely throwing to first to retire BR. Certainly there would be the possibility that R2 winds up safe at third, awarded or otherwise, but there would also be some possibility (perhaps only a very small possibility) that the way the play develops that the correct call would be to protect R2 back to second.

@MH-Tesla Жыл бұрын

Very well stated. I don't believe the video said R2 would be granted 3rd if this wasn't a force, but that he wouldn't be called out. Depends on how the play develops. And obviously if they check him to keep him from advancing and then throw to first and over throw and this runner then tries to score, he could still be out because the obstruction becomes mute. The point is, type B obstruction is no guarantee and wait and see. The umpires here got it correct.

@wraithleader012 Жыл бұрын

@@MH-Tesla You’re right that the video doesn’t claim the runner would be definitely safe at third. Maybe I’m being overly pedantic - or maybe I just wasn’t listening properly :) I do think the wording of what’s said could lead to someone misinterpreting the situation. Without the force, it’s more likely the runner will be safe (maybe at third, maybe not), but I think it’s worth clarifying that that would come about because the play would likely develop differently, and not something specific to the obstruction rule.

@helviojr Жыл бұрын

I'm not that sure that, if R2 had runned all his speed without being hindered, he wouldn't be in a position so near the bag that F4 would prefer to retire the BR. The force play at third was easily picked by F4 because R2 was really far from the base. But why was that?

@wraithleader012 Жыл бұрын

@@helviojr ⁠R2 seemed to be tagging up, at least initially, in case the ball was caught. An angle from just beyond third base shows this really well, and that R1 was not tagging, though perhaps hesitated briefly roughly half way between first and second. That same angle shows that BR reached first about the same time as F4’s throw was caught by F5. Angles and distances are going to be a little different, and I haven’t gone through frame by frame to be precise, but that would at least suggest that throwing to first would be less likely to get an out than the throw to third. If R2 had gone on contact, or at least broken sooner than they did, *perhaps* it would have been correct to award them third base on the obstruction, assuming that the obstruction still happens; even if it’s not guaranteed that they would have been safe, it’s reasonable to err in favour of the team being obstructed in these types of situations.

@helviojr Жыл бұрын

@@wraithleader012 Yes, you're right. He leaves really late and getting him was the best option.

@capegoat1 9 ай бұрын

Question: Contact with the shortstop clearly occurred before second baseman fielded the ball. Without a clear path to the ball, shortstop may well have arrived to compete in fielding said ball. Also... with a runner on first, and the ball looking like it was going to hit the ground, I think it might have been reasonable interpreted that the runner interfered with the shortstop! (With a force on, that runner should have been much farther up the line than what actually happened, unless he was worried that the ball might get caught in the air. In which case, the runner was screwed six ways from Sunday. If the ball had been caught in the air, the second baseman had a double play at second. If it bounced, he was much too close to second to argue that he might have reached third, but for being obstructed; and even then, I'd argue, as per above, that the runner did the instructing. Had he taken off immediately, as he should have, the second baseman likely still had him at third; or a force at second; and there would have been no runner standing there with whom to be interfered.) Lastly, I'm still not sure of the 'clarity' of the argument that the runner absolutely would have been awarded third. Even in high school, a runner isn't allowed to interfere with a player attempting to field the ball. That the player in question might not have gotten to the ball first is irrelevant; he was still trying to make a play.

@davej3781 3 ай бұрын

you definitely could argue that F6 had a play, but F4 has the more obvious play and the interference rule is clear that only one fielder can be protected at a time. from a positioning point of view you don't really want F6 fielding this ball, when you want to put the lead runner out at 3B or turn a double-play starting at 2B; with F6 charging this ball he'd field it with both 2B and 3B behind him. ruling R2 out for interference with F6 would not be provably wrong, just counter to the judgment that most would make.

@guessundheit6494 10 ай бұрын

2:00 - Fielders without the ball, like that second baseman, should position themselves where obstruction is impossible. In that case, directly behind second base (by about four feet) means NO runner's path, no matter how they round second, will result in contact. The second baseman cannot make a play without a ball, and the ball will be throwin TO THE BASE, so there's no need to be near the base until the ball is coming. Behind second is better defensively because stepping toward second will help 2B's momentum when throwing to third or home. 2:15 - Definitely obstruction. The shortshop knew he had no play, it was going to 2B. He had an obligation to stay out of the way, or better yet, run behind 2B and back up the play. (5:30 - Okay, that argument makes sense.) 6:40 - No such thing exists.

@MaydayAggro 10 ай бұрын

7.06 Note 2: If the defensive player blocks ... the baseline clearly without possession of the ball, obstruction shall be called. The runner is safe...."

@KevinQuinn81 Жыл бұрын

"But for reasons only this umpire and God know, he was given home due to the obstruction." 🤣🤣🤣

@gusespe4458 10 ай бұрын

The runner running to second clearly throws his arms out to intentionally make contact I would called “incidental contact”

@helviojr Жыл бұрын

Don't we consider that clear obstruction a Type 1 obstruction? The ball was being fielded to retire R2 at third. If so, it is an immediate dead ball, with third base awarded. On the other hand, we can also understand there was a play at third solely because of the obstruction. Had it not occurred, F4 would have a very close chance and would prefer retiring the batter-runner. So it would be a Type 2 obstruction, batter-runner would be safe because he was not out at the play, R2 would be awarded third because had the obstruction not occurred, there would be no throw to third.

@ericjohannsen 9 ай бұрын

I'm with you on Type 1 obstruction. Once 2B is protected, SS simply cannoit impede the runner's progress. There was never going to be a double play, so the obvious play, and the play they made, was to get the lead runner.

@grepbeer Жыл бұрын

I keep seeing people stating that the second baseman is THE player to make the play on the ball but really it could have been either imho. The short stop balked even before contact with the runner so i can see how this can be construed as interfering with a player that could make a play on the ball. By the second baseman making the play it does not in any way remove the ss from being a player than can make a play on the ball.

@helviojr Жыл бұрын

You must elect one and only one. If you say SS is the one that would field the ball, so the second baseman would not be protected. You must assess the play and choose which one was more likely to field the ball. Cannot be anyone.

@critter2 3 ай бұрын

it wouldn't of been either it was second baseman as the time he would of tried getting ball he on the oppiste side of the feild and ball would be behind him. (SS)

@lanem4304 Жыл бұрын

in the little league play, I have nothing - I am protecting the closer fielder who has a more direct line to fielding the ball. Give a "Safe" mechanic and let play continue. With regard to NFHS ruleset, Yes, I love the wisdom you got of "Obstructed from what?" question. If you call obstruction in NFHS, you MUST award bases and it is always at least 1 base; even if they would never have gotten there, nor attempted to go. A lot of times, I don't call the obstruction in cases like the one shown.

@wraithleader012 Жыл бұрын

For the little league play, short of somehow not being able to see the interaction between the runner and short stop, you really have to have something. Only the catcher and batter-runner get any sort of tangle/untangle protection, assuming neither is deemed to have done anything intentional to hinder the other and that both are merely setting off toward the ball or first base base respectively. Outside of that, even when both players are doing the thing they’d be expected to, and have no realistic opportunity to successfully avoid impeding the other player, a runner and fielder making contact with each other in this way can’t be nothing, and has to be either obstruction or interference. It’s just a little ironic that in this specific case regardless of which is called the correct result would be that R2 is out, R1 reaches second base and BR reaches first base.

@rayray4192 Жыл бұрын

@@wraithleader012 thigh school obstruction rule is wrong. It must be changed to the pro rule. Simply refuse to call incidental obstruction. Ignore it. It’s the right thing to do.

@wraithleader012 Жыл бұрын

@@rayray4192 I have no experience with the high school rule set, given I’m in Australia and we don’t have that level of distinction between levels of play. Hence my comments about the little league play under rules at least comparable to OBR and nothing about the high school play.

@rayray4192 Жыл бұрын

My 14-U tournament this weekend used official rules which is an anomaly in America. Most youth baseball uses the bastardized high school rule book. In official rules this is type B ( 2) obstruction. R-2 is out even though obstruction occurred. Hope you’re well and happy down under. Must be fall .

@67L48 10 ай бұрын

Only if you also say, "Interfered from what?" for the defensive team. If a batter swings and steps onto the plate in the partial path for a throw-down to 2B ... I want to see the umpire say, "Interference from what? Dude, you can barely get it back to the pitcher - you're never throwing that baserunner out at 2B. No interference call here." Nope. Never happens. Interference is often punitive in nature and we don't play the forecasting/guessing game with it. Quid pro quo. Interference is an automatic out without considering what would have happened without the interference. So, I like obstruction being an automatic base without considering what would have happened without the obstruction.

@ronquirk6930 3 ай бұрын

The first play in not obstruction, the runner reaches out and grabs the fielder

@gregmay4212 11 ай бұрын

The base runner was out of the base path when contact was made. Wouldn't this be interference made by the base runner against the fielder?

@teebob21 11 ай бұрын

The base path didn't exist. There was no tag attempt being made that would have restricted the runner to 3 feet in either direction of his chosen path.

@critter2 3 ай бұрын

they had the proper call correct first time, and only one feilder is protected shortstop wouldn't of had a play as it would of been pass him anyways so therefore second baseman would be protected dealy call awarded thrid . still have no clue how replay ll got this wrong still( i dont get why this isn't reviewable with ll it should of been)

@63076topher 3 ай бұрын

No they called OUT.

@davej3781 3 ай бұрын

this is Type 2 obstruction (or Type B in little league parlance - LL 7.06(b)). There is no minimum award for type 2/B obstruction, the runner is only awarded a base if the umpire judges the runner could have reached the base safely absent the obstruction. It fairly obvious that R2 couldn't have reached 3rd base safely, unless he suddenly became the Flash.

@acct5910 Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure the secret rule book states that the umpire must get the call wrong no matter what.

@allacesbaseball Жыл бұрын

I'm still signaling obstructing even if there's no penalty. Let everyone know you're watching for it and calling it.

@jasonlockhart3168 Жыл бұрын

I think they could've called "infield fly." It would've netted the same results and maybe with less confusion.

@Glock2201 11 ай бұрын

That would be an incorrect call because it was not catchable with ordinary effort.

@robertbrown7470 Жыл бұрын

If a play was being made on the runner, then he would get third on the obstruction.

@HingedWatch Жыл бұрын

I have type B obstruction, but the runner still out according to MLB or little league rules. For high school, im giving this a no-call

@MaydayAggro 10 ай бұрын

So for high school you're bending the rules.

@kerrytodd3753 Жыл бұрын

Here’s my take…..the runner never would have made it to third anyway. The shortstop initially had the play, then the second baseman. Umpire could have easily just said he protected the SS.

@63076topher Жыл бұрын

Not when he was not the one who made the play.

@fuckgoogle9061 Жыл бұрын

@Chris Humble doesnt matter who made the play.

@helviojr Жыл бұрын

Yes, if the umpire thinks that ball is most likely yo be fielded by the SS, it is interference, immediate dead ball, R2 out, R1 gets second, BR gets first. Clearly, the umpire thought otherwise, so it was an obstruction.

@63076topher Жыл бұрын

@@helviojr No because the out was not called right away.

@RonaldGorman 11 ай бұрын

our coaches actually have a play call where, if the situation arises, to try and draw an obstruction call. our batters are also instructed, with no runners on base, if they hit a dribbler where they will be easily out to try and induce a bad throw to first base by running just inside fair territory. I have no obstruction. here is a great video by Antonelli Baseball on the strategy by the offense to induce obstruction along with a definitive definition of the runners lane from 1st to 2nd to 3rd to home. He also talks about home to 1st batter lane. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mX6qkmCYpZp7kNU&ab_channel=AntonelliBaseball

@walterarrit5511 8 ай бұрын

You are a bad coach with little or no ethics.

@joem8496 13 күн бұрын

Runner would not have reached third anyway so in little league nothing changes

@keithyoungs9435 Жыл бұрын

That might have been shortstops ball. If the runner had not impeded is path.

@cizzymac Жыл бұрын

It was hit to the 1B side of 2nd. That was the second baseman's ball the whole way.

@keithyoungs9435 Жыл бұрын

@@cizzymac Doesn't matter what side it is on. It only matters who has a better play.

@keithyoungs9435 Жыл бұрын

@@cizzymac Also, shortstop tends to have the better arm

@63076topher Жыл бұрын

@@keithyoungs9435 Who was it that MADE THE PLAY not the shortstop watch again.

@keithyoungs9435 Жыл бұрын

@@63076topher No kidding. But the question is could it have been the short stop. The answer is actually yes. There also was the possibility of a double play.

@davej3781 Жыл бұрын

5:38 - "obviously if this had been a high school game the runner would've been safe at 3rd base". Not if I'm the base umpire. Assuming I see it correctly in real time, I'm signaling "that's nothing" and letting the play stand. If OC cares to argue, I'll point out the favor I did him by not calling R2 for interference and calling both R2 and R1 out on the possible double play (NFHS 8-4-2g). If he doesn't like that, well there's nothing more I can do for him.

@ericjohannsen 9 ай бұрын

How do you have nothing? I assume here you protect 2B (based on the angle from home plate showing the ball was much more directly hit to him). Since you can only protect one fielder, SS cannot stand so as to impede the runner's progress.

@davej3781 9 ай бұрын

@@ericjohannsen the idea is that the possible obstruction by F6 had no bearing on the play; if we review the definition of obstruction in the NFHS book: NFHS 2-22: "Obstruction is an act... that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.." let me ask: what was R2 hindered from doing? how did briefly bumping into F6 change the pattern of play? if F6 hadn't been in R2's way, what would have been different? the answer to all of those is nothing... therefore in my judgment, R2 was not obstructed. as to who to protect for an interference call, you're probably right that F4 was the only reasonable choice, but remember it's not up to the runner to pick who's protected and then crash into anyone else - he needs to be avoiding all fielders. so I'm not going to let this runner turn this collision he should've avoided and which had nothing to do with whether he would've been safe at 3B into a free base.

@ericjohannsen 9 ай бұрын

@@davej3781 I agree with your analysis under NFHS rules and note that you made a similar comment about where R2, who had no shot at 3B, bumpted into the SS to draw OBS. However, OBR is different. Type 1 OBS: "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner...the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out... The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction." Was a play being made on the runner? Check. Was he obstructed? He was running toward third base and his progress was impeded. I get your question, but my answer is, he was attempting to advance toward 3B. The rulebook remedy calls for the award of at least one base past the last one legally touched. I don't see that there's any discression to determine whether he would have made 3B.

@davej3781 9 ай бұрын

@@ericjohannsen under OBR and NCAA rules, this would be Type 2 obstruction; no play was being made on R2. thus, there would be no minimum award if obstruction is called.

@67L48 10 ай бұрын

1:42. This entire piece of logic about being reluctant to call obstruction only works for me if you apply the same logic to interference. But, we don't. We never try to figure out if the defensive player would have made the play or not. It's an automatic out for the mere act of interfering with the defense. We don't try to extrapolate or predict the actual implication of that interference or the significance of that interference on the resulting play. It seems to bother people to give "extra" bases that weren't earned or deserved, but those same people never seem to be bothered by the "extra" outs that weren't earned or deserved. For me, the obstruction call should follow the same logic and reason as interference. Except where explicitly governed by rule, I don't like umpires to add their own layer of justice ... unless they do the same with interference. It's OK for rules to be punitive ... as is the interference rule. I'm a fan of closely called interference. I'm also a fan of closely called obstruction. I find it odd that most people are fans of closely called interference, but few want obstruction to be closely called. In fact, most people are so disinterested in obstruction that they don't even know what it's called or what it is ... and insist on referring to it as interference.

@actuarialguy 10 ай бұрын

I think the asymmetry in the rules between the two types of calls is warranted because fielders have to be aware of the ball's location at a more granular level of detail. Therefore runners in general have more attention to spare for noticing and avoiding the position of nearby players than fielders do and so are held to a stricter level of responsibility for failing that task.

@coachp1389 Ай бұрын

Coul have been interference if the umpir thought the ss was attempting tonfield the ball

@erikpaullive Жыл бұрын

He was called out because umpires are humans, too, and make mistakes. The umpires probably didn't see the obstruction. One fielder, and only one fielder, is protected here from runner interference, and that is the 2nd baseman, not the short stop, so there is no interference 6.01(a)(10).

@kerrytodd3753 Жыл бұрын

Wow…..that makes no sense at all…..on this play, I would have called him out as well.

@erikpaullive Жыл бұрын

@@kerrytodd3753 I was making a point that R2 didn't interfere with F6. F4 is protected. Since there was no interference, there was obstruction.

@alexchavez3383 Жыл бұрын

@@erikpaulliveCorrect, and under OBR, that's Type 2 obstruction , which doesn't have an automatic penalty. We only ask ourselves what would have happened without the obstruction, which here is still an out at third, therefore we have an out at third.

@63076topher Жыл бұрын

@@kerrytodd3753 Why the second baseman made the play on the ball not the shortstop?

@63076topher Жыл бұрын

@@alexchavez3383 How do we know he would still be out he was stopped from running by a fielder NOT making a play on the ball.

@nuevaN.M 8 ай бұрын

The situation being a forced out at 3rd base and the ball being hit on the ground left no reason for the base runner to pause. The base runner did that intentionally either to impede the shortstop and or to get the obstruction call.

@davej3781 3 ай бұрын

he probably did it because he's a kid and got confused.... but it has no bearing on the obstruction call

@vaseevol Жыл бұрын

I would not call interference on the SS who clearly was attempting to get to the batted ball until he observed his pathway blocked by the runner and slowed down. The fact that the 2nd baseman was able to field the ball is actually irrelevant in my judgment. Think about what the call might have been if the 2nd baseman had been playing further to his left and the ball went into the outfield. In that instance the runner made contact with a fielder attempting to field a ball in play that had not passed the base.