Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[SanDiegoSteve]

Who is Jim?

[RPatrino]

Jim is John, except on Friday's when I call him Jim...sheeze...get a clue...LOL

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Jim, if the defense is in the process of a run down, and the runner is obstructed while retreating to the previous base, and the defense err's by dropping the ball in the rundown, would you call that Type B obstruction?

You might argue in 'theory' that because no member of the defense possessed control of the ball at the time of the obstruction that it would be Type B, but would you CALL that?

Originally Posted by mbyron

John, you have the facts correct, of course. But consider the following scenario: the play develops just as in the OP, except for the end.

1. F5 releases the runner as F6 picks up the loose ball, and then
2. F6 tags the runner before he can get back to 3B.

On your interp, you must call this Type B OBS and protect the runner back to 3B. You're calling it Type B because at the moment when the OBS took place no member of the defense had possession of the ball, and so there was no play on the runner.

The defense played on the runner immediately before and immediately after the OBS in my modified scenario. For me, that's sufficient to rule this Type A and award the runner home. For me, this ruling is most consistent with the spirit of the distinction between Type A and Type B OBS.

Bob & Michael,

Good questions, which get to the heart of the point I was trying to explore.

At what point is the runner no longer "being played upon". In your examples, I would be inclined to go with "Type A" - the runner was still being played upon. I think I would tend to use the criteria of "a step and a reach" in Bob's hypothetical, and, in Michael's, whether the ball was deflected towards another fielder in such a way that he had a "likely" play on the obstructed runner. (Similar to the criteria one would use to judge a runner's obligation to avoid a fielder attempting to field a "deflected" batted ball, if that makes sense.)

At the other end of the spectrum, if the F2 had "airmailed it" down the left field line, or the deflection was such that the ball went bounding into LCF instead of remaining in the infield, I would be quite comfortable judging that the runner was not being played upon at the time of the obstruction.

The actual play in the linked video is much more in the "grey area". The thing that led me to suggest that the runner was no longer being played upon (hence, Type B) was that by the time the F6 actually got possession of the ball, the runner was so close to 3B (despite the "leg lock" applied by Loretta) that he never even started to attempt a play on the R3.

An argument could certainly be made that he was still "in a rundown", and, apparently that was the ruling - which was met with only the mildest objection from the defense.

I was just trying to explore where one ought draw the line, because none of us is going to have this exact play in our games, but we might have something similar.

JM

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Bob & Michael,

Good questions, which get to the heart of the point I was trying to explore.

At what point is the runner no longer "being played upon". In your examples, I would be inclined to go with "Type A" - the runner was still being played upon. I think I would tend to use the criteria of "a step and a reach" in Bob's hypothetical, and, in Michael's, whether the ball was deflected towards another fielder in such a way that he had a "likely" play on the obstructed runner. (Similar to the criteria one would use to judge a runner's obligation to avoid a fielder attempting to field a "deflected" batted ball, if that makes sense.)

At the other end of the spectrum, if the F2 had "airmailed it" down the left field line, or the deflection was such that the ball went bounding into LCF instead of remaining in the infield, I would be quite comfortable judging that the runner was not being played upon at the time of the obstruction.

The actual play in the linked video is much more in the "grey area". The thing that led me to suggest that the runner was no longer being played upon (hence, Type B) was that by the time the F6 actually got possession of the ball, the runner was so close to 3B (despite the "leg lock" applied by Loretta) that he never even started to attempt a play on the R3.

An argument could certainly be made that he was still "in a rundown", and, apparently that was the ruling - which was met with only the mildest objection from the defense.

I was just trying to explore where one ought draw the line, because none of us is going to have this exact play in our games, but we might have something similar.

JM

So as a defender it could be to my advantage to "lose control", shall we say, of the ball?

Hmmmmm . . . .

[RPatrino]

JimJohn, in your 'airmail' scenario I would agree with your interpretation.

[Rich Ives]

Not so sure about the airmail. After all it was airmailed as a result of a play being made on the runner.

[mbyron]

Airmail:

(i) If F5 obstructs the runner on the way back to the base as the airmail passes overhead, I'd say Type A.

(ii) If F5 obstructs the runner after he turns and heads for home, with the ball rolling around LF, I'd say Type B.

Partly my ruling is based on the fact that the runner will get home in either scenario. Partly it's based on what F5 is trying to do: in (i) he doesn't know the ball got away, and he's setting up a tag on the runner around 3B. To his mind, he's still playing on the runner: Type A.

In (ii), he knows the ball's out in LF, and he's delaying the runner to set up a play at the plate. That's Type B.