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

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.

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.

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.

Maybe Mark Loretta was looking for a win by submission?

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

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

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.

Wow! That's a really BIG stretch.

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?

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

Who is Jim?

Jim is John, except on Friday's when I call him Jim...sheeze...get a clue...LOL

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 . . . .

JimJohn, in your 'airmail' scenario I would agree with your interpretation.

Not so sure about the airmail. After all it was airmailed as a result of a play being made on the runner.

Airmail:

(i) If F5 obstructs the runner on the way back to the base as the airmail passes overhead, I'd say Type A.

(ii) If F5 obstructs the runner after he turns and heads for home, with the ball rolling around LF, I'd say Type B.

Partly my ruling is based on the fact that the runner will get home in either scenario. Partly it's based on what F5 is trying to do: in (i) he doesn't know the ball got away, and he's setting up a tag on the runner around 3B. To his mind, he's still playing on the runner: Type A.

In (ii), he knows the ball's out in LF, and he's delaying the runner to set up a play at the plate. That's Type B.