Obstruction Call Mets/Phillies

[FredFan7]

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | PHI@NYM: An obstruction call gets Manuel ejected - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

[mbyron]

Players are coached to do this during a rundown: bump into the fielder after he's thrown the ball in order to draw the obstruction call. It worked in this case.

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

From an umpiring standpoint, I always want to end a rundown as quickly as possible. Rundowns are bad baseball and add nothing to the game. If the runner takes 2 steps sideways, he's out of the baseline and out. If there's contact with the fielder, obstruction (unfortunately, in FED we play on from that point since all OBS is "Type B"). If the runner does anything with his hands to touch or otherwise impede the fielder, INT. Move on.

[JPaco54]

[QUOTE=mbyron;600584]From an umpiring standpoint, I always want to end a rundown as quickly as possible. Rundowns are bad baseball and add nothing to the game.

Could you explain your thoughts on Rundowns, being bad baseball and add nothing to the game. I never looked at it that way. I just see it as another "Situation" in baseball. Sometimes it can force certain actions where a team can take advantage of advancing bases or scoring runs. Am I misisng something.

[dash_riprock]

I have nothing on that play (except a DP).

[umpjong]

Obstruction... His path was impeded. Yes he exaggerated it, but it was impeded.
Good call..... (cant not call it just because he made it look worse than it was)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Obstruction... His path was impeded. Yes he exaggerated it, but it was impeded.
Good call..... (cant not call it just because he made it look worse than it was)

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.

[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.

[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?

[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).

[UmpTTS43]

MLB is it's own critter in situations such as these. The bigboys play by different rules, we all know it. In amatuer ball, there is possibly OBS and possibly flagrant contact. Use the example to learn what you would do or rule do in that situation

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

MLB is it's own critter in situations such as these. The bigboys play by different rules, we all know it. In amatuer ball, there is possibly OBS and possibly flagrant contact. Use the example to learn what you would do or rule do in that situation

amen

[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