Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[jmkupka]

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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.

[jmkupka]

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

[Andy]

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.

[Paul L]

OBR 7.06(a)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, let me rile a few people

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!

[Dholloway1962]

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.

[greymule]

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, let me rile a few people

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

There runner clearly taunted the catcher

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.

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.

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

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by greymule

even though Cabrera did deliberately get himself a little extra-tangled with the fielder.

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.

[greymule]

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.

[Welpe]

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?

[greymule]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

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

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. . .