Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[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 . . . .