Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Remember, this is the MLB rule. Some rule sets, like LL, you'll need to have the ball to be in the way. Here, it's just on the way. So in LL you'd have seen OBS called right away.

So you saw the "that's nothing" fists out call initially, on the contact. Then you should have seen TIME! called to let the other umpires note where the BR was, for placement. That didn't happen, and the BR got second.

My question: Should the BR have been awarded second?

Not true for LL. You CAN have obstruction WITHOUT the fielder having the ball in their possession.

Referenece: 2009 LLBB Rulebook- 7.06(b)...Pg.73
2009 LLBB Casebook- Pg. 27-28: Rule 7.06 Play 7-4 and Play 7-5

[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."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Not true for LL. You CAN have obstruction WITHOUT the fielder having the ball in their possession.

Referenece: 2009 LLBB Rulebook- 7.06(b)...Pg.73
2009 LLBB Casebook- Pg. 27-28: Rule 7.06 Play 7-4 and Play 7-5

That's what Kyle said.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

That's what Kyle said.

I understood him to say you have to have the ball in LL to have OBS...if I missed something in the post my apologies.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

I understood him to say you have to have the ball in LL to have OBS...if I missed something in the post my apologies.

It wasn't as clear as it could have been but Kyle said:

"Some rule sets, like LL, you'll need to have the ball to be in the way."

Which means if you have the ball then you can be in the way - thus NOT obstructing.