Now, for some actual baseball

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm trying very hard to find the place in the book that says the runner is entitled to run into the fielder intentionally as long as it's just 1 step, and I can't find it. Little help here?

The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.

I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

As you know, it's umpire judgment. I've explained how I judge in post #16, above. Perhaps your criteria are different?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

The intent of the runner is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this OBS call is whether the runner's progress toward the base was impeded by F2.

[RPatrino]

In all these cases it is obstruction, pure and simple. My issue with these base runners is the need to make aggressive contact. Throwing in an elbow or lowering your shoulder, to me, might border on malicious contact (NCAA and below).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The intent of the runner is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this OBS call is whether the runner's progress toward the base was impeded by F2.

To my mind, we're almost saying the same thing.

To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.

To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.

How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.

Agreed.

To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.

Maybe. It depends on where the fielder is relative to the runner's basepath. It does not depend on what the runner is trying to do.

How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?

See mbyron's post #16. That sums it up for me.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not just looking at the defense, nor just at the runner. I'm trying to see the whole play.

To NOT call OBS on a rundown, I need to see the runner veer from a path to the base in order to contact the fielder. Merely swinging around one way rather than another when changing directions won't do it. Merely stepping 1 step toward a fielder won't do it. Just as he's allowed to round a base, he's allowed to change directions as he pleases. He must clearly be running in a direction other than toward the base to merit a no-call.

From what I've observed, coaches who teach their runners to run into the fielder also teach their fielders how to clear the basepath after throwing the ball.

Sounds like we're saying very similar things. However, I can't see how you can say this and still have OBS in the OP. He didn't swing around one way or another - he turned, found the fielder, and lowered his shoulder into him.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sounds like we're saying very similar things. However, I can't see how you can say this and still have OBS in the OP. He didn't swing around one way or another - he turned, found the fielder, and lowered his shoulder into him.

If we're saying the same thing, cool.

The call in the video is umpire judgment. You don't like it, I can see how it was called OBS in real time. :shrug:

You have to admit it was close, and the call on the field was not as bad as we've seen in MLB this season.

[DG]

Looks to me like the runner was watching the catcher, not the ball, and flung himself 90 degrees sideways at the catcher after he released the ball, no doubt in attempt to draw an OBS call, and it worked. Seems very clear IMHO, not close at all.

[dash_riprock]

The runner was clearly trying to draw an OBS call. Whether or not he was obstructed is not so clear.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The runner was clearly trying to draw an OBS call. Whether or not he was obstructed is not so clear.

Just so. And the umpires were required to rule only on the latter issue; many folks here seem to think that the former issue determines the latter.