Obstruction Call Mets/Phillies
 

Anyone catch this run down obstruction call? It looks like Victorino establishes his baseline and veers to his right to throw a shoulder into Reyes.

Yep, just saw it on Sportscenter 2 minutes ago. Yes, from that angle, I certainly don't have obstruction...I had to watch it w/o the volume because the Sportscenter people seemed to have reversed the terminology...the Mets coach also "beaked' the umpire too...the ump kept the bill of his hat below his.

Yep, looking at that call, I think I have an out for INT rather than awarding 2B for OBS...tough to say I guess

I don't think you can have INT on this, Reyes wasn't trying to make a play on Victorino, he was trying to get out of the way after throwing the ball.

That was definitely not obstruction. They kicked it. It wasn't interference either though.

Maybe we should set a standard Operating Proceedure.

If you make a post that disagrees with MLB, how about posting a link so the rest of us can check it out!

We really want to see how good you are!

try this

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

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

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.

[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. :confused:

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

No.

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

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:

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

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

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).