Now, for some actual baseball

[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.

[Art N]

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.[/QUOTE]

Here is one video of Shane Victorino that certainly looks like he initated the contact, but was awarded 2nd on the OBS and the Mets mgr was ejected for arguing it. I'm a Phillies fan and I thought this was generous at the time.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | PHI@NYM: An obstruction call gets Manuel ejected - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

[MD Longhorn]

Again, I would expect even my first year guys to get this one right.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(and on timing plays, point even if they didn't touch!)

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by asdf

If anyone questions whether or not I saw the tag at the plate.... "go to the video."

That's not an official mechanic. If anyone questions whether I saw the tag, they should properly appeal and I will let them know what I saw.

I know what I did and didn't see, I don't need some rat trying to get the crowd lit up for something that he probably wasn't even watching.

[REFANDUMP]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

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]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

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]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

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?