OK let's break this down. You 100% have obstruction at the plate because the catcher blocking the plate not allowing any clear line for the Runner to have access to the plate before the catcher has been brought into the play. The catcher being brought into the play would involve any throw that is coming home. Once the second baseman threw the ball at the catcher if the throw had taken him into the lane and he had blocked the plate it would've been fine but because he was there before the throw makes it an obstruction. Now it gets more tricky because the obstruction in this play is going to be ignored. Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and the play will always be allowed to finish before making a call. So with this because the runner had scored because the catcher had missed the ball the obstruction is going to be ignored. Now as for the malicious contact I didn't see any excessive force used on the player but that might just be the video angle. that looks like a normal tag with the player is getting low in case the runner slides which he didn't so he comes up to make a tag to the middle of his chest and the runner lift his arms pushing the pitchers arms up making it look worse than it actually was. Overall there's no real calls to be made other than the second runner getting tagged out.
The first baserunner scores. There is nothing called due to the defensive team not having possession of the ball after a tag attempt. Note: should the catcher had caught and maintained possession of the ball and tagged the baserunner, you would have had a case for obstruction because he was up the 3rd base line without possesion of the ball, which altered the runner's path to the base. The umpire should signal safe, with verbal, "that's nothing," and allow play to continue(which they did). The second runner attempting to score is out on the tag. I would not have called this a malicious play on the tag. In my judgement it was a firm, two handed tag placed in a way to make sure the ball isn't able to come loose while attempting a tag on a moving runner. Hreat senerio for review.
I have blocking plate and very potential obstruction by catcher leading up to tag...but then my runner had to throw his elbow toward pitcher so now I could rule malicious. I say first runner safe on blocking plate and second one out and ejected for malicious contact.
The second part of what you're saying I can see but the first part wouldn't be an obstruction call because the runner has scored. The obstruction didn't change the outcome of the play so there's no call to be made.
The runner reaches the base safely. But the base is also awarded on obstruction. So, he is safe for two reasons. There is no rule that says to ignore the obstruction. Your thinking doesn’t change the outcome, but it is not accurate to say that there is no obstruction. The runner was just not awarded additional bases…because there are none.
@@MwD676 -_- was there a call to be made. NO! Because yes you would have obstruction and the player would be awarded home but because he scored there's nothing to award so thus the obstruction is ignored unless you deemed it malicious. If there's nothing to be called then you're just gonna move on from it.
@@itissoldier7837 He is still protected because of obstruction. He does not need protection, so you make no call. If this play were at a different base, you might need to clarify that the award is the same as the base reached safely. My point is that obstruction still happened and the base was awarded. Your argument suggests that because he is safe anyway, obstruction never happened.
? This is not true ? Just because the infield is in does not protect the catcher from an obstruction call. The catcher is required to leave a clear line to the plate for the runner up until the catcher is brought into the play. The catcher would've been fine if once the second baseman had the ball and then threw it home and then shifted into the lane to catch the ball. But in this play the catcher is directly on the plate blocking before he was involved in the play. This makes it obstruction. Now this umpire didn't make an obstruction call because obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and play is gonna be allowed to finish before making the call. So with this play the catcher missed the ball and the runner scored because of this obstruction is going to be ignored because it didn't change the outcome of the play.
Both comments here are mistakenly referring to OBR plate blocking rule. Obstruction in FED has a different standard. If we are hypothetically talking OBR plate blocking, then OP is exactly correct about the drawn in infielder exception.
??? but he is safe so how do you have obstruction ??? Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball because the player scored then the blocking the plate is ignored yes it did happen and if he was tagged out then it would've been overturned. Second parts nothing player gets low to tag a guy for a slide he doesn't slide so he comes up to tag him which intern made the runner lift his arms making it look worse than it actually was.
In my opinion: 1) De facto, no. Not to mention, because he was safe anyway, calling this only creates more problems. 2) Again, you could make an argument, but I don’t see how the runner was disadvantaged. No obstruction. 3) No, just no.
First play I have catcher obstructing but runner was safe anyway. Second runner I don't have obstruction by catcher but he was putting himself at risk of obstructing for sure. Nothing malicious on tag of second runner, just an out. Ymmv.
They are saying catcher may have obstructed second runner during tag. I say that is questionable but no matter I still have malicious contact and second runner remains out and ejected
??? That is the exact opposite of the rule ??? LOL. The catcher can block the plate only if he has possession of the ball or if a throw coming to the plate takes him into the runners lane and blocks the plate. In this play the catcher is clearly on top of the plate blocking the lane before a throw was even made because of this it makes it obstruction. Now the catcher ended up missing the ball and the runner scored so now the obstruction call is going to be ignored because it didn't change the outcome of the play. Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and play will be allowed to finish before making any call.
OK let's break this down. You 100% have obstruction at the plate because the catcher blocking the plate not allowing any clear line for the Runner to have access to the plate before the catcher has been brought into the play. The catcher being brought into the play would involve any throw that is coming home. Once the second baseman threw the ball at the catcher if the throw had taken him into the lane and he had blocked the plate it would've been fine but because he was there before the throw makes it an obstruction. Now it gets more tricky because the obstruction in this play is going to be ignored. Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and the play will always be allowed to finish before making a call. So with this because the runner had scored because the catcher had missed the ball the obstruction is going to be ignored. Now as for the malicious contact I didn't see any excessive force used on the player but that might just be the video angle. that looks like a normal tag with the player is getting low in case the runner slides which he didn't so he comes up to make a tag to the middle of his chest and the runner lift his arms pushing the pitchers arms up making it look worse than it actually was. Overall there's no real calls to be made other than the second runner getting tagged out.
I would agree with you.
Obstruction at the end. Score the runner.
@@nbaumgart how? The runner never slowed down or deviated from his path prior to the pitcher going for the tag.
Tag is clean. Block is illegal.
Yes the block is illegal but there's still no call because the runner scored.
The first baserunner scores. There is nothing called due to the defensive team not having possession of the ball after a tag attempt. Note: should the catcher had caught and maintained possession of the ball and tagged the baserunner, you would have had a case for obstruction because he was up the 3rd base line without possesion of the ball, which altered the runner's path to the base. The umpire should signal safe, with verbal, "that's nothing," and allow play to continue(which they did). The second runner attempting to score is out on the tag. I would not have called this a malicious play on the tag. In my judgement it was a firm, two handed tag placed in a way to make sure the ball isn't able to come loose while attempting a tag on a moving runner.
Hreat senerio for review.
I have blocking plate and very potential obstruction by catcher leading up to tag...but then my runner had to throw his elbow toward pitcher so now I could rule malicious. I say first runner safe on blocking plate and second one out and ejected for malicious contact.
The second part of what you're saying I can see but the first part wouldn't be an obstruction call because the runner has scored. The obstruction didn't change the outcome of the play so there's no call to be made.
Yes, the obstruction is ignored because he scored. I'm just saying there was obstruction
The runner reaches the base safely. But the base is also awarded on obstruction. So, he is safe for two reasons.
There is no rule that says to ignore the obstruction. Your thinking doesn’t change the outcome, but it is not accurate to say that there is no obstruction. The runner was just not awarded additional bases…because there are none.
@@MwD676 -_- was there a call to be made. NO! Because yes you would have obstruction and the player would be awarded home but because he scored there's nothing to award so thus the obstruction is ignored unless you deemed it malicious. If there's nothing to be called then you're just gonna move on from it.
@@itissoldier7837 He is still protected because of obstruction. He does not need protection, so you make no call. If this play were at a different base, you might need to clarify that the award is the same as the base reached safely.
My point is that obstruction still happened and the base was awarded.
Your argument suggests that because he is safe anyway, obstruction never happened.
lol at tag malicious contact. 😂 is crazy
I have all 3
The Catcher is not charged for Obstruction because the ball was hit to drawn in infield.
No malicious contact on the pitcher.
? This is not true ? Just because the infield is in does not protect the catcher from an obstruction call. The catcher is required to leave a clear line to the plate for the runner up until the catcher is brought into the play. The catcher would've been fine if once the second baseman had the ball and then threw it home and then shifted into the lane to catch the ball. But in this play the catcher is directly on the plate blocking before he was involved in the play. This makes it obstruction. Now this umpire didn't make an obstruction call because obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and play is gonna be allowed to finish before making the call. So with this play the catcher missed the ball and the runner scored because of this obstruction is going to be ignored because it didn't change the outcome of the play.
Both comments here are mistakenly referring to OBR plate blocking rule. Obstruction in FED has a different standard.
If we are hypothetically talking OBR plate blocking, then OP is exactly correct about the drawn in infielder exception.
Safe and safe obstruction blocking plate
??? but he is safe so how do you have obstruction ??? Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball because the player scored then the blocking the plate is ignored yes it did happen and if he was tagged out then it would've been overturned. Second parts nothing player gets low to tag a guy for a slide he doesn't slide so he comes up to tag him which intern made the runner lift his arms making it look worse than it actually was.
In my opinion:
1) De facto, no. Not to mention, because he was safe anyway, calling this only creates more problems.
2) Again, you could make an argument, but I don’t see how the runner was disadvantaged. No obstruction.
3) No, just no.
First play I have catcher obstructing but runner was safe anyway. Second runner I don't have obstruction by catcher but he was putting himself at risk of obstructing for sure. Nothing malicious on tag of second runner, just an out. Ymmv.
Depending on the rule set, the first play being obstruction is an immediate dead ball time situation, so the second play can't even occur.
There is no call, it’s obstruction on the first guy but obstruction doesn’t call for other players on the base to advance so the second runner is out
They are saying catcher may have obstructed second runner during tag. I say that is questionable but no matter I still have malicious contact and second runner remains out and ejected
No violation since the catcher did not have possession of the ball.
??? That is the exact opposite of the rule ??? LOL. The catcher can block the plate only if he has possession of the ball or if a throw coming to the plate takes him into the runners lane and blocks the plate. In this play the catcher is clearly on top of the plate blocking the lane before a throw was even made because of this it makes it obstruction. Now the catcher ended up missing the ball and the runner scored so now the obstruction call is going to be ignored because it didn't change the outcome of the play. Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball and play will be allowed to finish before making any call.
@@itissoldier7837 You goofball, the video has been edited since it was posted. This is our future. It is sad but true.
@@chuckfrezzel348 oh so the videos been edited because your original post was wrong about the rule cool got it.
@@itissoldier7837 Message them and ask if the original video was edited after the original post.
@@itissoldier7837You didn’t even watch the full video did you??? Come on be honest.
Zero call