Umpires On YouTube - Obstruction?

[Jim Porter]

Obstruction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9pnrKQIZGM&NR=1

[greymule]

No way I would have called OBS there, but what do I know?

The runner slid directly back into the base and didn't appear to have been obstructed in his return. Didn't seem to alter his path, either. The OBS had to have been called on F3's right foot/leg, but I didn't see more than inconsequential contact there.

At most, it's one of those calls that might be technically correct under a literal reading of the rule, but it's not the correct "ballpark" call. Overofficiating.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Obstruction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9pnrKQIZGM&NR=1

Does not look like obstruction to me.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by greymule

At most, it's one of those calls that might be technically correct under a literal reading of the rule, but it's not the correct "ballpark" call. Overofficiating.

Even with a literal reading of the rule this is not obstruction. The runner clearly had a path back to the base.

[donj]

After viewing the video clip several times, it apprears that the 1st baseman had his foot in front of the base blocking the runners slide back, preventing him from making contact with the base. Wouldn't this be considered OBS?

[RPatrino]

Donj, you're kidding right?

[Jim Porter]

The runner begins his retreat to the base at :16 into the video. The first baseman catches the ball and begins applying the tag just before it turns to :17. So the whole thing happens in one second.

I think the play illustrates important differences between FED, OBR, and NCAA.

Under OBR, the first baseman is not guilty of obstruction if he is in the act of fielding a throw. The ball must be in flight, directly toward, and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball. Clearly, the ball is in flight, directly toward, and within less than a second of that first baseman. It shouldn't be considered obstruction under the OBR.

As far as FED, I was a high school umpire in a non-FED state. So if I say something incorrect, hopefully a FED umpire will chime in. As I understand it, the FED definition of obstruction is very similar to OBR. Apparently the FED rule uses the language, "the immediate act of catching the ball." I don't know how much more immediate you can get than a fraction of a second. I would say this likely isn't obstruction under FED rules either, unless something has changed under FED that I don't know about.

But under NCAA rules, the first baseman cannot block the base without having clear possession of the ball -- period. That first baseman must first catch the ball before he can take a position to block the base. Clearly, he did not do that. The runner arrived first, albeit in less than a second before the throw arrived, but the runner arrived before the ball nonetheless. So under NCAA rules, this could very well be obstruction.

[lawump]

Holy Crap...its like Deja Vu, all over again.

We like had this exact thread last year on either this board or umpire.org. The similarities are shocking.

Someone posted the video. Everyone said no way is that OBS. Then someone chimed in with, "well, if this is LL it very well may be OBS." Then it went from there.

I mean its freaky how they're almost the same exact thread. For a moment I thought I was going to have see a shrink...or play the lotto...because I definitely have seen this thread in advance!

[LMan]

Originally Posted by donj

After viewing the video clip several times, it apprears that the 1st baseman had his foot in front of the base blocking the runners slide back, preventing him from making contact with the base. Wouldn't this be considered OBS?

Hee hee. .......


I liked this comment on the clip:

that was a great call and the mechanics were done by th book. of course u call that u cant stradle the bag like that.

of course!

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I was wondering how long it was going to take someone to comment that this is about the third time this clip has made the rounds of the boards.

Sorry. I did do a little searching before I posted it, but didn't find anything. Admittedly, though, my search was not thorough.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I was wondering how long it was going to take someone to comment that this is about the third time this clip has made the rounds of the boards.

Right. And I could see it being obstruction in a LL and NCAA game, where the requirement has been strengthened to require that the fielder have the ball. You don't have to give him *A* path to the base, but the path he wants to the base.

In OBR/NFHS, this is nothing but a defensive coach getting close to getting run for not understanding the difference between an imminent play and obstruction.

[budjones05]

It's a judgement call. Let's leave it like that. Some may call obstruction, others may not.

[David M]

How many umpires were in the crew? If it is a 2 man crew what is he doing in A?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by David M

How many umpires were in the crew? If it is a 2 man crew what is he doing in A?

If my memory serves me correctly this was a WR tournament game. I'm sure that if it was there was at least a 4 man crew.


Tim.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by David M

How many umpires were in the crew? If it is a 2 man crew what is he doing in A?

This is the video that came out after the 2006 LLWS. It was portrayed as a 4 or 6 man crew (I can't remember). I was one of the posters that said these kids looked a little old for LL but I was "pooh-pooh'd" for being an enemy of LL.