Now, for some actual baseball
 

Watch this:

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | CLE@CIN: Mesoraco scores on botched rundown - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Done.

I have a tag out.

There's no way this is obstruction. I would hope even my first year guys would call this one correctly.

What a heads up play by the dead duck runner. When caught up in a pickle, go for an OBS call.

What a bone headed call by U3. The runner went right after the catcher, who was clearly out of the runner's basepath.

Nice point at the the plate by the PU, too. (what's that all about?) Yeah, it's an award, but you still don't point because he could miss the plate.

All stuff I'd yell at my 13 year umpires for messing up on.

And just how many times have you had to tell a "he was out of the baseline" yelling coach that the runner can run wherever he wants to run, that the only time there's a path is when a tag is attempted. :D

Can't have it both ways guys!

It seemed to me that the PU pointed as he touched. I've done that plenty of times. If anyone questions whether or not I saw the tag at the plate.... "go to the video."

I was in Cincy on business for the last two weeks and was at this game. Not sure what was more puzzling on this...

The fact that obstruction was called, or the fact that Acta didn't even come to the railing on this.

I'll bet he wishes he did once he saw the replay.

The fact that obstruction

Even an announcer (Chris welch) who played several seasons in the Major Leagues called it "interference" rather than "obstruction". I was listening to this game on the radio and Marty Brennaman (Hall of Fame announcer) did the same.

Baseline not an issue here. Doing a 90 out of the baseline to draw an OBS call is.

On another forum, the growing consensus on this play is that the runner:
(a) probably intentionally bumped F2 to draw the OBS call (he's looking at him most of the time), and
(b) it's still close enough to call, especially in real time.

I can see both of those points. Good base running. In real time it just
looks like he turns that way to run back to home and F2 is in the way - good base running.

Thanks
David

The trouble with pointing at the plate is what you are saying when you don't point at the plate. You're giving the defense information on a missed dish.

Don't point at the plate, unless you're conveying information to the scorekeeper on a timing play. That's when it's proper to point at the plate.

Bad reason to deviate from the proper mechanic, imho. Do NOT point at the plate except on timing plays (and on timing plays, point even if they didn't touch!)

Basketball ref, and baseball coach, with a question on where you look on a play like this. In basketball we typically "referee the defense" to know whether or not legal guarding position was attained before contact. That way we know what to call, a block or player control foul. Do baseball umpires do the same kind of thing in situations like this where contact between players is possible/likely?

I ask because my eyes followed the catcher (defense) on this one and, based on his movement away from R3, it seemed that R3 initiated the contact by leaning into the catcher.

Granted, as a coach I would also instruct my C to divert further from the runner once he's thrown the ball to avoid such a situation in the first place.

I would have to agree with you from what I have seen MLB umps call in the past.
Based on just what I have seen Shane Victorino of Phillies do as a runner in run downs and get the obstruction call, this play is peanuts. Last year while in a run down between 1st and 2nd, Shane curled heading back towards second base several feet onto the inside (infield side) of the grass and ran right into the second baseman who probably thought he was far enough away. Victorino was awarded 2nd. It was pretty obvious what he was doing, but was awarded the base. I've seen him do this a couple of times now with success.

Would the level of ball change the way any of you would call it? i.e. small diamond games vs. JR-SR Babe Ruth/Legion/HS?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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?

Agreed.
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.

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

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.

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.

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.