Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@SD: Cabrera is awarded home on interference call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia


Hopefully this takes you right to the link. If not, look for, "LAD@SD Cabrera is awarded home on interference call"

Please check it out @ give your comments.

Just by his mechanics, umpire is giving a penalty to the defense, not awarding a base due to OBS.

By the way, I'm from the other side (ASA), just wanted to read your opinions. Thanks.

[QUOTE=jmkupka;628484
Just by his mechanics, umpire is giving a penalty to the defense, not awarding a base due to OBS.

By the way, I'm from the other side (ASA), just wanted to read your opinions. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

In ASA , are their penalties for infractions of the rules?

We have that in Baseball also. OBS is an infraction of the rules. The infraction was caused by the defense, hense the defense is giving a penalty for commiting an infraction.

Not sure what your meaning here???????

The umpire called obstruction, penalized the defense by correctly awarding the runner home. What part of that are you having trouble with? That's the penalty for obstruction when a play is being made on the runner; at least one base past the last legally touched base, which in this case is home.

Perhaps the ASA doesn't have two different types of obstruction?

This one messed Vinny up, because he originally thought that Gibson missed the ball on the ground and was calling Cabrera out. Vinny's 80, but he still doesn't get too many wrong.

Gibson should have been clearer. ;)

In the clip linked here, the San Diego announcer Mark Grant is doing the commentary. When Mark Grant learns a rule, it will be his first. He is on a par with Morgan and McCarver when it comes to rules. He couldn't understand how the umpire awarded home on the play since Cabrera was headed back into the base. If all that was awarded was the base he was going back to, what would stop fielders from tackling every runner in hopes of not getting caught? That's why the runner is always given one base past the one he last legally touched when a play is being made on him.

The umpire's mechanics were correct. When the defense plays on a runner and obstructs that runner (as sometimes happens in a rundown), the ball is dead and the obstructed runner is awarded at least one base beyond his last legally touched base.

Here's what I saw the umpire signal:

1. When F5 dropped the throw from F2, U3 signaled "safe" to indicate that there was no infraction on the play and/or that there was no tag.

2. Immediately after that, F5 put a leg hold on the runner to prevent him from returning to the base. U3 pointed at F5 and (presumably) said, "That's obstruction!"

3. I did not notice him signal "Time," but that should have been next.

4. He pointed toward home to instruct the runner that he had been awarded home. I think he said, "That way!" :)

5. I couldn't quite tell, but in one shot I think I saw that he called time at this point. If there was an erroneous mechanic, that would be it, but frankly it's not much of an error.

In case you're interested, here's the rule:

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?

Any following runners would be awarded the base(s) the umpire judges that the runner(s) would have gotten absent the obstruction. If they thought that the BR would have made second, that's where he would have been placed.

Oh, I know the rule. I just wonder if Jr. could have made second on that play. I think he snuck in during the confusion.

Any thoughts on what might have been the runner interfering with the throw? It appears the fielder set up inside the line and the runner side-stepped in front of him as the throw arrived.

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. It's not interference for the runner to run toward the fielder, though contact would have to be ruled on (as the umpire did in this case).

re: ASA, penalties, and obstruction.

In ASA there are not two types of obstruction, and in ASA there is no penalty (as in extra punishment, if you will) for committing obstruction. In ASA, the umpire is to award the base the runner would have achieved (in his judgment) if the obstruction had not occurred. So, the runner does not get an extra base, he only gets the base he would have gotten without the obstruction.

Perhaps that helps explain the OP's terminology.

good call..easy call... nice leg lock...LOL

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