Obstruction and coach's interference video
 

I put this up on one of the other forums a few months ago when it happened. I thought since some of you only use this one that I would put it up here, too, so you could all benefit from it.

I'm going to copy and paste from the other site to set up the video, then post the link.


original call on the play was "nothing" on the obstruction, and no call on the coach's assist.

i did not see the play as my eyes had gone with the ball and i was getting into position for a play at 2B had the B/R tried to advance. both managers came out to argue with U1, and i intercepted the defensive manager and pretty much told him to wait his turn. after the argument we got together and this is what we came up with...

the PU shed light on the coaches assist at 1b. so, we informed the offensive manager that there was no obstruction because F3 was where he needed to be to make the play and couldn't magically disappear, and that his B/R was out for the coach's assist. he got tossed. after that, the 1B coach got upset that U1 hadn't seen it and took offense to the over rule. he was tossed, too.

after reviewing the play post game, it turns out that the thrown ball had already gotten by F3, and actually almost hit the B/R after he had rounded 1B. the B/R avoided the ball, and then in his next step or two collided with F3. upon this review, it has been decided that obs should have been called, though it wouldn't have had an impact on the play as it would have been type b, and the B/R had retreated to 1B to argue instead of continuing on his (what should have been protected) way to 2B.

if you look at :38 in the video, you can see that he is watching the ball go through while he is moving behind 1B in foul ground. if you now go to :35 (my video is descending, i hope it is universal...) you can see that he is behind 1B and looking right at the possible obstruction, which he deemed nothing and gave the mechanic for. this is where the video cuts away and the ball goes by the catcher. now, move forward to :12. you see him giving the nothing mechanic, and looking at Jacobs cuz Jacobs is whining. between :11 and :10 you can see a very slight turn of his head as he then glances at the ball, which, unfortunately, is exactly when Gross pushes Jacobs off the bag. even though it is right in front of him, he doesn't see it cuz he looks in to see where the ball is. it sucks, but it happens. when we talked about it, he didn't know that Gross had pushed him.

http://s240.photobucket.com/albums/f..._Stream001.flv

I would've awarded 2B here on OBS...as a baserunner, you're running to 2B to draw a throw to trade a run for an out. He would've reached 2B in my judgement, had the OBS not occurred. Then, I believe that since you have OBS and you're going to award 2B, then the INT on the 1B coach, the OBS supercedes the INT...I'm not sure, but this is a great video...thanks for posting and allowing me to chime in on this.

Based on the video, I would have had the runner protected to 2B as well.

Based on the "post obstruction evidence", the BR wouldn't have been "trading" anything and would have reached 2B safely even WITH the obstruction if he'd only kept going. If the obstruction had actually been called, maybe he would have (kept going).

I've got to disagree with you on that one. Just because the offense is/may be awarded an advance base, they are still required to advance legally. IMO, the base coach's interference supercedes the obstruction. Agree that it's a good video.

JM

U3 did a great job.

there's no play being made on the B/R, so you have type b obs if you were to call it. on type b you can protect him somewhere, but you can't play god. he stopped running and returned to first, taking umpire judgment out of play, and subjecting him to being called out on that coach's assist. this actually was discussed when we got together. if we were going to change the call and call obstruction, what would the result be? 1st base, becasue he stopped running. then he would be out of the assist.

the same type of play happened a few years ago in the ALCS or ALDS boston vs oakland. tejada was obstructed around 3B, it was called, but he stopped running and was subsequently thrown out at home. if you don't complete the play, then the umpire can't protect you.

Steve

thanks, garth. all i had to do was intercept a manager cuz they both came out at the same time and went after U1. other than that i was just chillin'.

Forest,

Where on earth do you get the idea that a runner cannot be awarded an advance base on a Type B Obstruction call?

I would suggest that the rules say you CAN..."play god", that is.

The rule (and Official Interpretation) say that the umpire is to make a ruling that "...nullifies the act of obstruction...". Now in the video, were we to pretend that the 1B Coach did NOT shove the runner towards 2B after he returned, it is clear that he would have EASILY reached 2B had the F3 not obstructed him.

Since the BR was "hell bent" for 2B at the time of the Obstruction, it seems plain to me that the proper ruling on this play (again, absent the 1B coach's interference) would be to award the BR 2B after action relaxed. Because that is the ruling that would nullify the obstruction. Leaving him at 1B would allow the obstruction to prevent his advance.

A materially different situation from the Tejada play you reference because it was by no means clear in that situation that Tejada would have reached home absent the obstruction.

edited to add...

To me it's essentially the same principle applied in this case play from the MLBUM:



JM

OBS would have been a fine call here, but I can understand U1's snap second judgment. I had to look at the replay 2 times to see that OBS should have been called.

Secondly, great call on Coach's Interference. Even if you had OBS, INT overrules because you aren't protecting him to get pushed by his coach. He still has to stay in the rules. What if he had made malicious contact after OBS. Still gets tossed... and OUT. Same principle.

If there had been 2 outs, R2 would have scored as the Coach's INT is a time play, but R2 touched home before B/R was aided.

I think you're picking a nit.

Let's just agree that there can be disagreement on what "playing God" means.

I have corrected everything that was wrong with my original post.

Garth,

I didn't mean to.

The point I was trying to make is that bobbybanaduck seems to suggest that it would be improper to award the BR 2B because he never "completed" his effort to reach 2B after he was obstructed.

I believe that is not a proper criteria for determining the correct ruling on the play.

Forest seemed to have been suffering under the misapprehension that a runner can NEVER be awarded an advance base on a Type B obstruction - which the case play I cited shows is patently wrong.

Somebody doesn't understand how to rule on Type B obstruction under OBR. Maybe it's me.

Havng seen the video, where would you have placed the BR if his 1B coach hadn't shoved him towards 2B?

JM

P.S. I would concur with your assessment of U3's performace on the play in question.

Call the obstruction and the interference in the order they happened.

B/R is out.

I think I agree with the ultimate call (runner out on coach's interference), but I disagree with the reasoning here.

The runner was impeded closer to 1B than 2B, so he returned to 1B. But it seems clear (after the play) that he would have made it to 2B had he not been obstructed. To negate the obstruction, then, I would have awarded 2B on the obstruction.

The problem with your thinking is that you've made the runner's decision to return to 1B decisive, which ignores the more important matter of negating the obstruction. A decision to return CAN be informative on some plays, but on this one it seems clear that the BR would have made 2B easily.

The important issue, by rule, is to negate the obstruction, and you may use post-play evidence (ball getting past F2, etc.) to make your award.

The outcome still won't be pretty: BR awarded 2B on the OBS but out on the coach's interference. Still, I think it's the right call, and I wonder whether it might have kept the O-coaches in the game (not that THAT's the most important issue here :cool: ).

While I agree that this was a nasty situation, all I can say is:

Come on guy's, it's OBR! You take it step by step.

• Type B obstruction with BR- delayed award. (notice I did not say delayed dead ball)
• Coach's Interference on the BR
• 2nd base award to BR for the obstruction
• Call BR out for Coach's Interference
• Eject personnel as needed.

I think that Bobbybanaduck and his crew did a good job on this one. A tip of the hat to you and your crew.

Regards

i've been deer in headlights on this one cuz there was NO OBSTRUCTION called on the play, which is why Jacobs was called out on the play after the discussion. after reading the posts i made a call last night and talked about this with a AAA guy. what we came up with is pretty much what was posted somewhere above, so i will edit my playing god statement to correct it, and say that this would be one of the times you could play god.

if, in the discussion after the play, we had decided that there WAS obstruction on this play, then Jacobs would have been awarded 2B and the coach's assist would have been disregarded as the OBS would have taken precedence. the discussion on the phone last night pretty much culminated in the fact that because the ball went to the backstop and Jacobs was going hard with intent to go to 2B, he would be sent there as the fix to the OBS, and the coach's assist wouldn't have mattered cuz he should have already been at 2B.

thanks for keeping me in check.

http://s240.photobucket.com/albums/f..._Stream001.flv

edited to add the link in again cuz it's a new page...

So, if there's obstruction and you protect the runner to third, and he misses second base not as a direct result of the obstruction, is the runner liable to be put out on appeal?

If he is responsible for running the bases correctly (and he is), why does the obstruction in the original play excuse the coach's interference at first base?

that's what my original thinking was before talking it out last night. his point was that the runner stopped running due to being obstructed and went back to 1B. if e hadn't been obstructed, he would have kept going and there would never have been an opportunity for the int. therefore, at the conclusion of the play, he would have awarded the runner such to make it so that the obstruction was rectified, sending him to 2B. i'm going to send him the video and see what he has to say about it. it may take awhile, but i'll post when he gets back to me.

Convoluted reasoning. The ball was live as it was type B obstruction.

i don't see your point.

I see your point.

But I still agree with JM, who said above that, even though protected, the runner still must run the bases legally.

Although without the OBS the coach would not have had the opportunity to interfere, the fact is that he DID interfere during a live ball. If the runner had committed interference after the OBS, he still would have been liable to be called out.

I'll be interested to hear what the AAA guy says.

i don't disagree, as that was how i saw it. this is what came out of the conversation i had with this other guy last night. i'm going to get in touch with the pbuc rules guy and see what he has to say about it. i changed my mind, i'm not going to send it to the PBUC guy cuz i don't want it to stir up any controversy if he was unaware of it, and i'd hate to be the cause of his ranking being effected.

In my opinion, while I wouldn't want my ranking affect either...doesn't your statement negate the entire spirit of ranking in that your best officials shouldn't miss those calls and the "non-best" officials maybe would miss them? I'm not saying I would've got the call right...although I think I did as well as many other on here who chose to take a stab at this....

This is a fantastic thread again, thank you for posting...because for once instead of all of us saying "HTBT"...we are all here, we all see the call...now pipe up and offer a ruling...no matter what call you made there...there were going to be ejections which is baseball sometimes. Nice job, and again, thanks for posting the video...this one really made me think...and is a great example of type b obstruction

Bobby, i'm going to have to agree with Oz and JM on this play. INT, the majority of the time will supersede an OBS award.

The only thing I know that super cedes interference and obstruction is malicious contact. Call the obstruction and interference in the order they happen. Even if the obstruction was called in the OP, the B/R would have been out.

Hey, what am I, chopped liver? :p

It's not actually a case of "superseding," since you can enforce both. I would use the concept of "superseding" only where it was not possible to enforce both penalties, so one had to choose which to enforce.

Under the obstruction rule don't you "nullify" the act of obstruction. Without the obstruction there would have been no interference. Send'em to second.

Too many what ifs for me. It's obstruction, don't get me wrong, but once the BR went back to first he's still subject to the rules of the game. He can't intentionally interfere, for example. And a coach can't assist him.

But why did he return to first? The obstruction doesn't allow him carte blanche but did the coach's push really affect the play? Not to me (judgement) and by awarding second base I'm nullifying the act of obstruction which caused the "interference" by the coach. JMO.

It's not judgment. Did the coach assist the runner or not? THAT'S the judgment and the video makes that answer obvious. The rule doesn't require that the assist "affect the play."

You can't justify a call just by saying it's a judgment call.

If a runner is obstructed going to third and he slaps the ball out of F5's hand ala Arod, based on your rationale, you would not call the interference since he never would have slapped the ball out of his hands if he didn't get obstructed... hopefully you wouldn't call this

If the obstruction was the proximate cause of the "interference" then I think you can ignore it. For example, Br hits a ball to the wall. As BR approaches first, F3 suddenly stands right on the bag. BR deviates to the right to go around him and runs into / near the coach who pushes BR toward second. I'd probably ignore the pushing in this instance. But, that's not what happened in the original play.

You can't? Define assist. Did he help the runner to advance or return? Neither, that's judgement. Was the runner trying to advance? No, judgement. Absent an "assist" (just touching the runner doesn't constitute an assist) I've got obstruction and he's going to 2nd. That's judgement.

Here it wouldn't matter because as soon as F5 catches the ball and starts to apply a tag to the obstructed runner I'm calling time and awarding third on the obstruction if that's the base I'm protecting him to. If it's not then yes I'm calling the interference.

Havaing the advantage of the video:

1. Point to F3, "That's obstruction"...ball stays in play 7.06(b)

2. Point to B/R "That's interference"...Ball stays in play 7.09(i)

3. When play ends: "That's obstruction...you second base."

4. "That's interference, the runner is out."

5. Eject as many as necessary.

Here's a little tidbit from JEA:

“Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency.

7.09 it is interference by a batter or a runner when-
(i)In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.


Are you watching the same video...the assistant coache shoves him off the effing bag in the direction of second and the runner takes a couple of steps before changing his mind.

Judging from the video...poor judgment. At the time of the assist the runner did indeed take steps towards second. Changing his mind and coming back does not negate his initial action.

:D

But the enforcement of 7.09i is to call the runner out at the time of interference (if you have it and with no play being made on the "assisted" runner) yes the ball remains in play.

You are correct....brain fart on my part. That's what I get for trying to post so quicly in between classes.

(See how easy that was, Mark?)

See post just before yours.




Yep. I can see what you mean similar to a BR turning towards second on a wild throw. Did he attempt or not?



:rolleyes:

Absent a "ruling" from a recognized authority we'll just have to A2D.

Viewing the video again, I can see that the runner did try to advance to second (he went further than I originally thought he did). But (you knew that was coming) can he actually be assisted to a base he was going to be awarded?

I don't have current a rulebook handy, but isn't this the last sentence of the rule section?

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

What does no play being made on the "assisted" runner have to do with whether the ball remains in play or not? It's either dead or it isn't.

Garth here is my thinking on the play.

First in this particular play, IMO we need to take a look at the ENTIRE play and not "piece meal the rules"

Example: We all know that a runner is required to touch all bases in order. However, suppose R1 is obstructed while trying to touch second base on route to third base. In other words the reason he missed touching the base was due to the OBS.

Playing action ends and the defense wants to appeal that R1 missed second base.

Our ruling - appeal denied because in our judgement the reason R1 didn't touch the base was because F4 / F6 prevented him from doing so.

In the aforementioned we do not "piece meal" the rules but look at the entire play.

Therefore, in this OP IMO we need to do the same thing.

Why!

If OBS was called in the first place, then most likely the Coach would not have assited the runner.

Therefore, after playing action ends and the umpires huddle. If in fact they decide that OBS should have been called, then the coaches interference should be ignored because R1 is awarded 2nd base hence no advantage gained as a result of the coaches assist.

Off topic a bit but now I think we can all see the benefit of having a replay to look at.


Pete Booth

In the case of 7.09(1), sometimes known as "coach's interference', it isn't.

The ball reamains in play, though the runner is called out. From JEA:

"If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible."

Yes. (you knew that was coming, as well.)

Apples and oranges.

From JEA:

When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire should call "Time" and enforce the penalty. The runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (assistance).
If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible. It is also consistent with other enforcement principles in the Official Baseball Rules in which you have a "delayed dead ball": 7.06(b) - Obstruction with no play being made on the obstructed runner; and 7.08(h) - Runner declared out for passing a preceding runner.

Here's an example:

Runner on 2nd...the batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop. The B-R advances to 1st and overruns the base as the ball deflects off the 1st baseman. The B-R feints to 2nd and then trips to the ground. His coach helps him up as the other runner attempts to score. The 1st baseman retrieves the ball and fires home in time for the putout. Should the ball be killed at the time of the assist by the coach or should the out stand? RULING: Since the play was not being made on the assisted runner, the ball remains alive and in play. This is a double play. (Though not covered specifically in the Official Rules, this ruling is based on common sense and fair play. If the ball were instantly killed at the time of a coach's assist, the coach could always control the status of the ball by grabbing a nearby player.)

Sorry for the redundancy. Garth beat me to it.

The words, "Though not covered specifically in the Official Rules", tells me what I really need to know. Your and Garth's explanations make the rule much more clear to me now. Thanks to both.

You're welcome.

What does this tell you other than there are interps in place to cover what isn't covered in the rule book? I hope that you meant that you will call it by this interp and not just rely on the book.

I'm wondering if anybody would have a different ruling on this play depending on the system of rules.

In other words, would your ruling be any different under OBR, FED, or NCAA? Or, would your ruling apply to all three?

By the way, a great video. Very instructive.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Thanks, NFump, I truly appreciate your efforts in typing all of that from the JEA.

I agree with those who would administer the events in the order they happened. In looking at the video I would have called OBS (but not killed the ball), then called INT (and called the runner out). Though I'm not an NCAA Rules Editor, as a very experienced NCAA umpire that's what I would have ruled in an NCAA game.

GREAT video coverage!

JJ

No prob! I "appreciate" your "appreciation". :rolleyes:

By the way, what do you have fitty? What would you call here? It was nice of you to appreciate my typing efforts and all but an answer would've been more appropriate.(And probably much more "appreciated") ;)

Third time I have answered this.

Really? Are you posting and deleting your posts a la Tyler? Or are you referring to another but similar thread? By my count post 51 is your first and this one (#55) is only your second. Unless you're posting under multiple monikers? You wouldn't be the first and I doubt you'll be the last.

It's alright you don't have to post an answer to the question. I understand completely.