Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[UmpJM]

OK....

Maybe I'm seeing this differently from everyone else, but I see this as Type B Obstruction, and, were I the umpire, would have left R3 at 3B rather than awarding home. (Putting the BR on 2B was correct regardless.)

On the initial collision, the runner, ball, and fielder all converged on the same spot and there was a minor "train wreck". U3 gave a "Safe" mechanic, indicating to me, "That's nothing!". That's what I thought. No tag, no obstruction (F5 was "in the act of fielding"), no interference (R3 demonstrated no intent to interfere with the throw).

Then, as the ball skittered over in the direction of F6, F5 obstructed R3. Blatantly. But, at that point in time, no "play" was being made on R3 because the ball was "loose".

And there is no way he would have made it home absent the obstruction.

So, where am I taking the wrong track on this train of thought?

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Then, as the ball skittered over in the direction of F6, F5 obstructed R3. Blatantly. But, at that point in time, no "play" was being made on R3 because the ball was "loose".

The ball was nearby, and F5's rationale for tying up the runner was to have his teammate pick up the ball and tag the runner.

That's still a play on the runner and thus Type A OBS.

[RPatrino]

Mike has it right. There was a play being made on the runner, so that makes this Type A obstruction. My interpretation is that in a run down situation, a runner being run back to a base is still having a play made upon him.

[SanDiegoSteve]

And F5 was purposely holding Cabrera in a figure-4 leg lock for the express purpose of tagging him with the ball, and that constitutes a play on the runner. If the ball were being played to another base, then the argument for Type B would hold water.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The ball was nearby, and F5's rationale for tying up the runner was to have his teammate pick up the ball and tag the runner.

That's still a play on the runner and thus Type A OBS.

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Mike has it right. There was a play being made on the runner, so that makes this Type A obstruction. My interpretation is that in a run down situation, a runner being run back to a base is still having a play made upon him.

Michael & Bob,

The following definition of "a play", which is defined nowhere in the text of the rules, appears in the MLBUM:

...A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or
actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.) ...

While I would agree that a "...runner in a rundown..." who is obstructed is properly ruled "Type A" and that the runner was being "played upon" just prior to the obstruction occurring, at the time of the obstruction, he was NOT being played upon.

No member of the defense had possession of the ball and no throw was in progress. The ball was "loose".

JM