Obstruction Call Mets/Phillies

[johnnyg08]

Reyes only impeded him because Victorino initiated the contact into Reyes...I'd be interested to see how the crew was evaluated on this call...only because I'm curious not because I really care one way or another.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

how's that Ozzy? you've got links coming out your ears now

Thanks, I can't tell you how much time I waste trying to find these things.

Yep, Type A in my book! Not a pretty call, but by the book.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

If you made that call, and I was your partner, I would have no problem backing you up on it. Yes, you can't not call it JUST because he made it look worse, but contact is not automatic OBS either. My judgment would be it's nothing, because the runner had a clear path directly to 2nd base, i.e., he was not obstructed, but instead of taking that path, he chose to run into the fielder. In other words, he was obstructed by his own act, not the fielder's.

But isn't a runner allowed to take whatever path he chooses?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

But isn't a runner allowed to take whatever path he chooses?

No.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bit of an acting job by Victorino if you ask me, but clearly there was contact.

Watching Victorino's reaction after being tagged out, it didn't appear that he was expecting the obstruction call.

[UmpJM]

I concur with dash.

There is a basic principle in baseball that a player cannot "go out of his way" to create a call.

For example, from 7.09(j) Comment, we have the language:

...“Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. ...

Similarly, from J/R, in the chapter on Obstruction, we have:

However, it is not obstruction if

...

2) a runner intentionally alters his course to contact a fielder who is not protected.

...

Ultimately, whether the runner did or did not "intentionally alter his course" is a matter of umpire judgement. From what I saw in the replays, were I the umpire, I would have judged that the runner had done so. Apparently, U1 saw it differently.

To Rich, I would say, the runner may choose his path, but I am not going to call Obstruction if he chooses a path to create contact with a fielder that is not a legitimate attempt to advance.

JM

[dileonardoja]

Just like umpires are taught to sell their calls when necessary, Victorrino did a good job of selling the obstruction. Give him his due. When you see this in real time from the angle he had and only see it that once, it is very reasonable to make the call he did. When he got to the locker room and reviewed it maybe he had a different opinion of the play. I'd have no problem backing my partner if he made that call or if he made it the other way (a nothing).