Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@SD: Hudson scores tying run on Ethier's grounder - Video | dodgers.com: Multimedia


This takes you to Dodgers game highlights... among them is one called "LAD@SD Cabrera is awarded home on interference call"

Please check it out @ give your comments.
My thoughts... speaking ASA... maybe USC, but there's no way I'm awarding home. He'd have been out by a mile at the plate with or without the OBS.

Just by his mechanics, umpire is giving a penalty to the defense, not awarding a base due to OBS.

Is the MLB OBS rule different?

Yes. This is considered Type A obstruction in the Official Rules of Baseball. Also known as a runner being obstructed while being played upon. The ball is immediately dead and the obstructed runner is awarded at least one base beyond the last he legally touched.

wow... completely contradicts ASA. I was fired up when I saw that call. Guess I'm wrong.

Saw the highlight on ESPN this morning. Perfectly correct call for MLB.

For ASA...I agree, if runner is put out (barring the OBS exceptions) in that situation, I'm awarding third base.

OBR 7.06(a)

Okay, let me rile a few people :rolleyes:

Wrong call. The runner was NOT attempting to reach 3B.

There runner clearly taunted the catcher and, IMO, with full intent to interfere with the play blocked the ball with his leg/hip and, in doing so, initiated contact with the defender who was clearly attempting to stay out of the runner's path.

BTW, I would have pointed with my left. From the OF, I'll be this looked like an ejection or the umpire asking the PU for help.

And I don't care what game it is!

AFA, IFA, and I believe NAFA have a rule about a runner being obstructed during a rundown. They are awarded the lead base.

AFA also has a rule about flagrant obstruction, which I think this MLB play might qualify. The penalty for that is an immediate ejection. Flagrant Player Obstruction: The fielder shall not at any time flagrantly (with deliberate unsportsmanlike intent) impede the batter, batterrunner
or runner.

jmkupka, Official Baseball Rules (OBR) and ASA rules differ in a thousand ways beyond the obvious ones that anyone can see while watching a game. It is best if you do not attempt to apply any baseball rules to softball or vice versa.

Obstruction, interference, awarding of bases, appeals of missed bases, scoring of runs, force plays, batting out of order, even the batter having a foot in contact with the plate when making contact—there are key differences in all these areas.

OBR have changed little over the past century. Somebody from 1909 reading today's rule book would recognize almost all of it. Therefore, OBR are also supplemented by volumes of interpretation (J/R, PBUC, MLBUM, BRD, Evans).

Further, OBR rules are very different from the rules that apply to high school and college baseball games.

In the clip, it looks to me that the throw did not hit Cabrera but got away from F5 just before the contact. But even with the ball loose, Cabrera was still being directly played upon (I guess), and there was contact, even though Cabrera did deliberately get himself a little extra-tangled with the fielder. And that might have gotten him the award of home. Had there been minimal contact just after the ball got away (technically OBS), with Cabrera diving right back into 3B, I suspect there would have been no call.

I disagree. It appears to me he was trying signal the BR over to 2nd base, which is why I think he turned back towards 3rd, to buy extra time to advance the BR.

I could possibly see that but I don't think the fielder was that innocent either.

To me, looks like the fielder deliberately scissor locked Cabrera's leg to try to prevent him from getting back to 3B

Also, after looking at video again, IRISH may have a point about Cabrera intentionally getting hit by the thrown ball. He does throw his leg and hip out there.

That could be. I ran this thing 50 times and still am not sure.

Unfortunately, we don't have a 100% shot of whether the throw hit Cabrera or not. I thought it did not hit Cabrera but instead bounced off F5's glove. Whatever happened, it was a bad throw. F5 could easily have handled a higher throw, even to his glove side, and still made the tag.

Greymule, I take it that this would not be a situation where the fielder was "about the receive" the throw, which exempts the fielder from obstruction OBR, correct?

If F5 was "about to receive a thrown ball and the ball [was] in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder" that he needed to "occupy his position to receive to ball," then he was in the act of fielding a ball and any immediately preceding contact by the runner would not generate an OBS call.

But in Cabrera's play, the contact occurred after the ball got away—immediately after, but still after. Thus F5's contact would indeed constitute OBS. So you're right—this was not an "about to receive" play.

Looking at it yet again, I think Cabrera stuck his leg/hip out just after the ball got away, to entangle himself further with F5. I don't see an intentional INT with the throw.

I wish there was a way to go frame by frame.

I'll agree the ball may not have hit him, really not sure and there is no clear shot. However, I have no doubt this runner intentionally attempted to block the throw and was NOT trying to reach the base at the time of the throw. MLB 7.08(b) does allow for INT to be called on interferring with a thrown ball.

The reason I thought the batter was gesturing to the catcher was because the BR wasn't even close to 1B when he started. However, that would actually support my opinion that he was trying to interupt the play and not reach the base. Take another look at the step taken before contact. It certainly wasn't toward the base nor anywhere necessary to head in that direction and, again IMO, seemed very deliberate.

BTW, take another look at the umpire. He comes off the line and raises the left arm for a second or two. Don't know why or if he even knew it was out there. Then he makes a safe signal with the ball rolling on the ground and then never gives a DB signal (as MLB instructs).

I will still stick with my original opinion that this is not OBS, but INT even in the MLB. Either that, or Reggie Jackson is the new rules interpreter. :D

It looked that way to me, too (but I haven't checked the video link to see it over and over).

My initial reaction was that there was nothing (neither INT nor OBS) until that scissor lock. It almost seemed like the award of home was a penalty for that. I'll have to check out the video link was I'm at a video-capable terminal. . .

Well, he did lock up his leg, but think about it. How do you react when someone kicks you between the legs? I don't know about you, but even as a kid, I clamp my legs together.

That made me laugh!!!!!

It's called a cup! :)

I think you mean ASA completely contradicts OBR. ASA is based off of baseball and OBR and made changes they thought best suited softball.

I dont know if that was sarcasm or not but in baseball runners are taught then when you are in a run down, TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE FIELDERS, bc it is INT. this happens probably about once a month in MLB, and obviously happens much much more often in lower levels of play.

You did intend to say "OBS", right?

The rule may be OBS, but the coaches teach them it is INT.:D

I find it easier to remember that in baseball, OBS is a form of INT.

Thanx, I was beginning to think it was a beer forum.

Maybe, maybe not. Softball more resembles rounders than baseball and that is where both games originated.

Can't it be both? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/er...smiley-004.gif

From Wiki, for what it's worth:

The first version of softball was invented in Chicago, Illinois, on Thanksgiving Day, 1887 by George Hancock and Bakir Dzananovic as a winter version of baseball. It was intended to be a way for baseball players to keep in practice during the winter. At the time, the sport was called "Indoor Baseball."

And that is where the reference to baseball ended. But, then again, I think your source is suspect.

Hancock, a reporter, was noted to have instituted rules for his game. Obviously there is a similarity to baseball, which at that time was still in it's infancy, but no differently than Gaelic or Australian Rules football is to soccer though they are different games.

with all due respect to both of you, i think you both are completely missing my point. while i know nothing of the history of softball, i have a hard time believing that softball is not based off of baseball. There are probably 10,000 similarities in the ASA rule book and OBR rule book, do you really think this is a coincidence?

ASA est 1933
USSSA est 1968
NSA est 1982

National League est 1876
American League est 1901

Steve:

Softball was obviously derived from baseball. I am not an expert in "rounders," but I don't know of a single softball rule specifically chosen from that game. A little research on rounders reveals only a general and rather vague structural correlation to baseball (or softball)—about like that between rugby and football. The rounders rules I am familiar with are completely foreign to baseball. The similarities between softball and baseball are far too great for the two games to have evolved separately from the same ancient source.

For that matter, football, rugby, ice hockey, polo—games where the teams defend goals on the opposite ends of a field—undoubtedly had their origins in some form of soccer. This does not make those sports in any way inferior.

Some softball people are sensitive about the common notion that softball is somehow a lesser game than baseball—that baseball takes more skill to play and to umpire—and resent it when baseball people disparage softball. ("He was a good ballplayer, but at his age and weight he should be playing softball.") I think this is the root of the desire to establish softball as owing little to baseball.

I would add that as much as I love baseball, focused on it as a player for many years, and respect the enormous work that has gone into interpreting and clarifying its rules, I prefer to watch college softball over MLB.

:confused: What? Can you explain that?

No, tired of wasting my time on simple little-ball BS

I don't see how OBR considers OBS to be a form of INT.

OBR does recognize "defensive interference" when a fielder (virtually always F2) prevents a batter from hitting a batted ball. Some codes call it OBS when the bat hits F2's mitt.

The definition of OBS does not use the terms interfere or interference, nor does the definition of INT mention OBS.

Okay, fine, one more little ball post to satisfy those who read what they want instead of what is posted.

And I don't see where I stated that it was a fact of life, but a manner in which I remember it when having a baseball discussion. However, to the point where it can be confusing:

From MLB rules:

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,
obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference,
all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise
provided by these rules.

from hitting a pitch. (No such animal in softball, we call it obstruction.)

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead. (Again, what we call obstruction)

And, in MLB, when there is a play being made on an obstructed runner, it is the same signal (dead ball) as we have in INT. In softball, it is a DDB until that runner is put out, play is complete or the runner has passed their area of protection.

I deal with a lot of baseball umpires and when THEY mention INT of the defense, I know how to interpret that as meaning OBS by thinking of OBS as a form of INT in their world.

Just to add to the baseball insanity...

Not all obstruction in OBR causes the ball to become dead immediately. What's commonly known as Type B obstruction, or obstruction on a runner not being played upon, does not kill the ball and it is possible for a runner to overrun his protection like in softball.

Everyone tries to but when stuff that is posted is just so dumb (taunting during a rundown, interference with thrown ball......:rolleyes:) people have to try to figure out a way to make what you said sound better in their minds.

You said "I find it easier to remember that in baseball, OBS is a form of INT" That is just 100% wrong. You asked people to read what was written and they did. Maybe you should have said in baseball what is called interference may be called obstruction in softball.

"Not all obstruction in OBR causes the ball to become dead immediately."

True. It's dead immediately only if the obstructed runner is being directly played upon, not if the ball is on the warning track. But OBR rules are by and large pretty well thought out, though some are quite complicated and are usually simplified for school ball (e.g., appeals). But as someone who has worked OBR one night and ASA the next, I think it's unproductive to try to think of one ruleset in terms of the other or try to reconcile the two sets.

By using the word obstructs in its definition of INT, OBR technically violated a principle in writing methods, procedures, instructions, rules, etc., in that they used a term with a specific, narrow, important meaning in a generic way. Maybe blocks would have been a better choice than obstructs.

In editing things like employee manuals, I encounter this frequently. The same applies to alternating between two terms with the same meaning (e.g., computer instructions using screen and monitor interchangeably). It might seem obvious to the writer, but somebody is going to be confused.

I can see Mikes point on the video; however, IMO, the runners actions are not a "callable" offense. Its not quantifiable.. the observed offense is the obs.

The obvious blatant (retaliatory?) OBS is what should be called in that play (and was).

I dont have a preference on how OBS should be enforced, punitive - (MLB/NCAA) or not punitive (ASA), but I do think that video is a good example of why punitive punishments are sometimes good. That OBS was worth an extra base IMO. ASA could change it tomorrow and I would be fine with certain punitive punishments.

I will add that sometimes, as umps, we get caught up in what terms are common use ("interfering with a runner", "clicker", "foul tip") vs the technical "by the book" usage of a term.

In my profession we use a lot of legal terminology and abbreviations and government codes we all understand; however, when dealing with the public, we are supposed to use a layman version (and no abbreviations) as much as possible to make it more understandable. There is no need to show your expertise (for lack of a better word) by using terms that they dont know. Just use language they understand.


I think its fine and i try not to get hung up on certain terms when lay persons use them in my direction.

Announcers, are, IMO, lay persons. They are not umpires. They are a "talent", meeting criteria as too looks, voice, and presentation.. entertainment. They will use terms lay persons use, not terms an umpire would use at a rules clinic or discussion.

If they call a "tipped foul ball" a "foul tip", I would not correct them, I know what they mean..

if they say "that defender interfered with my runner", I wouldnt say something idiotic (but I've heard before) like -"well with interference, your runner is out"... we know what they mean and there is no need to correct the coach, address the issue, not the language used. You should use the correct term in response, but not correct his usage of the term... the term usage is NOT your issue.

And nothing I love more than to irritate an umpire by calling my indicator a clicker.

Its kind of like OOOOMB

Obnoxious over officiating on a message board.

It's not idiotic if the offense insists that INT be called and it gets us one out closer to the adult beverages. :D