Now, for some actual baseball

Rich

REFANDUMP wrote
Horrible call by the third base umpire. The runner obviously is trying to run into the fielder and not advance towards a base.

Really? Just cause he tried to run into the fielder doesn't mean it's not obstruction. Look at R3's feet throughout the sequence -- he moved about a foot into the grass, if that. F2 was where he didn't belong and he paid for it. R3 was just a savvy runner that took advantage of a situation that presented itself.

REFANDUMP

I'm not going to bail out bad baserunning when the runner is 2 to 3 feet on the infield grass running into a fielder who is getting out of the way (in my opinion, is out of the way).

Rich

REFANDUMP wrote
I'm not going to bail out bad baserunning when the runner is 2 to 3 feet on the infield grass running into a fielder who is getting out of the way (in my opinion, is out of the way).

How is that relevant?

The runner deviated from his original path by about a foot. The fielder was too close. Poor rundown defense.

MD Longhorn

Steven Tyler wrote
I don't agree here, it could confuse the defense into thinking the runner touched, and scored on the play. Let the defense at least have the opportunity to make a play on the runner without an appeal to get the out.

I see your point, but the point of the pointing (on a timing play) is to indicate that the run scores. Which it does, pending appeal. You are signalling to the scorekeeper, not the players.

MD Longhorn

GROUPthink wrote
Really? Just cause he tried to run into the fielder doesn't mean it's not obstruction.

Yes, it most definitely does. if the runner TRIED TO run into the fielder (who was not between that runner and any base), then the fielder did not prevent him from running where he wanted to run. You can't award obstruction to a runner who intentionally runs toward a fielder instead of a base.

Rich

mbcrowder wrote
Yes, it most definitely does. if the runner TRIED TO run into the fielder (who was not between that runner and any base), then the fielder did not prevent him from running where he wanted to run. You can't award obstruction to a runner who intentionally runs toward a fielder instead of a base.

Well, I guess we'll disagree here, then. Reminds of of the basketball play where the defender tries to embellish contact to draw a charge -- that alone doesn't mean that it's no longer a player control foul.

MD Longhorn

GROUPthink wrote
Well, I guess we'll disagree here, then. Reminds of of the basketball play where the defender tries to embellish contact to draw a charge -- that alone doesn't mean that it's no longer a player control foul.

Think about it. If what you are saying is true was true, runners would not need to run to bases at all... just find the nearest fielder and run into them.

If a fielder in your way causes you to deviate (whether by contact or by changing directions to avoid, or slow down, etc) - it's obstruction. if the fielder NOT in your way requires you to deviate in order to draw contact, it's nothing.

Rich

mbcrowder wrote
Think about it. If what you are saying is true was true, runners would not need to run to bases at all... just find the nearest fielder and run into them.

If a fielder in your way causes you to deviate (whether by contact or by changing directions to avoid, or slow down, etc) - it's obstruction. if the fielder NOT in your way requires you to deviate in order to draw contact, it's nothing.

He changed directions as part of the rundown. Did he take a step in the direction of the fielder? Yes. Did he do it intentionally? Probably. He's entitled to take that step, though -- the fielder was too close.

This is why I said we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't see either of us moving from our position.

MD Longhorn

GROUPthink wrote
He changed directions as part of the rundown. Did he take a step in the direction of the fielder? Yes. Did he do it intentionally? Probably. He's entitled to take that step, though -- the fielder was too close.

This is why I said we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't see either of us moving from our position.

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?

mbyron

mbcrowder wrote
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

mbyron wrote
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

mbcrowder wrote
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

mbcrowder wrote
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

dash_riprock wrote
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

mbcrowder wrote
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

mbyron wrote
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

mbcrowder wrote
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.

« Previous Page Next Page »