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.

[RPatrino]

Maybe Mark Loretta was looking for a win by submission?

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Maybe Mark Loretta was looking for a win by submission?

The Dodgers can't get a win any other way these days...

[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

[tballump]

And while everyone super analizes this play (and may freeze up on the field due to the many combinations that run through their minds) the Big League guys just react and use common sense. These types of plays separate the men from the boys, no matter the level of competition one calls.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Michael & Bob,

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



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

Wow! That's a really BIG stretch.

[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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

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.

[greymule]

I watched that clip 50 times trying to discern various things. I momentarily considered the fact that the ball was loose, but I agree that, "in the spirit of the distinction," this is type A OBS. The OBS derived from a play in which the runner was being directly played upon.

R1 has a big lead. F1 catches him flat-footed and fires a pick-off throw in the dirt and to F3's right. F3 dives into the baseline in an attempt to block the ball. The ball bounces off F3 and is rolling toward the 1B dugout as R1 dives back toward 1B and gets tangled with F3. R1 crawls around F3 and grabs 1B as F2 picks up the ball. That has to be type A OBS as well (doesn't it?), even though at the time of the OBS, the ball was loose and there was no chance of putting R1 out.

I think of type 2 as "BR trips over F3 with the ball in the alley."

[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 . . . .