MLB: Beckham tag play on DeJesus

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

As I saw it, the play wasn't over yet, continuing action caused the runner to lose contact with the base, while a tag was still applied. I have an out. It's not like the runner was standing on the base and was pushed off the base and then tagged out.

In the Hrbek play, I believe it was ruled that the force of a hard (and legal) tag caused the off-balance runner to lose contact with the base. That's not the case here. The runner's foot kept contact with the base before and throughout the tag. He was about to pop up directly over the base when he was barreled by the fielder's body.

I'm killing it and keeping the runner at 2nd. If the coach comes out and wants rule support for my not calling the runner out, I'm going to tell him quietly that if he forces me to do that, it can only be type A obstruction and the runner will get 3rd (which he cannot protest).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

If the coach comes out and wants rule support for my not calling the runner out, I'm going to tell him quietly that if he forces me to do that, it can only be type A obstruction and the runner will get 3rd (which he cannot protest).

Oh, yes, he can. Your ruling is all interpretation.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

In the Hrbek play, I believe it was ruled that the force of a hard (and legal) tag caused the off-balance runner to lose contact with the base. That's not the case here. The runner's foot kept contact with the base before and throughout the tag. He was about to pop up directly over the base when he was barreled by the fielder's body.

I'm killing it and keeping the runner at 2nd. If the coach comes out and wants rule support for my not calling the runner out, I'm going to tell him quietly that if he forces me to do that, it can only be type A obstruction and the runner will get 3rd (which he cannot protest).

Dash, I think you are reading more into this play then there actually was. To me, and clearly this is my interpretation of what I see on the video, this was a train wreck, players doing what they are supposed to do, in continuous action, without any intent to collide.

To extend this to an obstruction ruling is a stretch.

[UmpJM]

By definition, it can't be obstruction if the fielder has possession of the ball.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

By definition, it can't be obstruction if the fielder has possession of the ball.

JM

Not always true. The play that Evans uses to demonstrate this, and one that occurred at the ML level is:

F1 has fielded a bunt near the first base line, as he trips and falls, with the ball securely in his glove, he reaches out with the hand closer to the B/R and grabs an ankle, tripping him, he then tags him.

Ruling: Obstruction

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

In the Hrbek play, I believe it was ruled that the force of a hard (and legal) tag caused the off-balance runner to lose contact with the base. That's not the case here. The runner's foot kept contact with the base before and throughout the tag. He was about to pop up directly over the base when he was barreled by the fielder's body.

I'm killing it and keeping the runner at 2nd. If the coach comes out and wants rule support for my not calling the runner out, I'm going to tell him quietly that if he forces me to do that, it can only be type A obstruction and the runner will get 3rd (which he cannot protest).

I'm keeping him at 2nd as well --- tagging a player and having him come off the bag is completely different from being knocked off the bag by the body of the fielder.

However, taking this to OBS is just wrong. For many reasons - the most obvious of which being that the fielder had possession of the ball.