Last night's (Sunday) Tigers-Orioles game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I would like to ask one of our video gurus if he can find a video of the defensive play in the bottom of the third inning. My wife and sons are Tigers fan so I didn't have a dog in this fight (Go Royals!!).

The Tigers had a Runner on 2B with one out. B3 hit a one hop grounder to F6. R2 had taken a fairly large lead but stopped to let the batted ball go past to F6. For some reason R2 started to go back to 2B. F4 took a position directly between R2 and 2B. F6 threw to F4. R2 dove toward 2B and made contact with F4 as F4 was bobbling and failing to catch F6's throw. F4 laid on top of R2 while grabbing the ball and tagged R2 out. I thought obstruction should have been called.

MTD, Sr.

[rbmartin]

Here's the play in question

Schoop, Kelly tangle at second | orioles.com

[rbmartin]

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: ... It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. ...


Since the fielder simply misplayed the throw before any contact occurred, I would concur that it probably should have been obstruction.

[JJ]

I wonder if the 2nd base umpire was aware the ball was dropped? I thought that may have been why the 3rd base umpire came in right away after the play.
How they did NOT have obstruction on this is beyond me.

JJ

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by JJ

I wonder if the 2nd base umpire was aware the ball was dropped? I thought that may have been why the 3rd base umpire came in right away after the play.
How they did NOT have obstruction on this is beyond me.

JJ

It has been rationalized elsewhere. umpire-empire.com and close call sports. I think they are right for one part of the fielders body but not the other.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Here's the play in question

Schoop, Kelly tangle at second | orioles.com

RBMartin:

Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich Ives]

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

Ball didn't pass the fielder. Fielder didn't miss the ball (dropped it yes - missed it no).

Not obstruction

[rbmartin]

Just for my information, Which levels teach the "step and a reach" theory then determining obstruction and/or interference? If so would it apply here?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Just for my information, Which levels teach the "step and a reach" theory then determining obstruction and/or interference? If so would it apply here?

All of them although the specific wording varies). And, yes, it might apply here.