Always love it when players run full speed toward a guy with the ball and then get mad when a forceful tag is applied. Hey, want a nice gentle tag? Then stop running and give yourself up. But if you’re going all out, then I’m going all out, too … and our contact is unlikely to be gentle.
At 2:30, you say that "We should have obstruction on this play" because the catcher is "blocking" the runner's access to the plate. However, the runner is only about halfway to the plate. He's a good 50 feet away from the catcher. In that freeze frame, you are already declaring this obstruction. What if we move the runner back 10 feet? Would that still be obstruction? What if we move the runner back another 10 feet? Still obstruction? The point I'm making is that a fielder "blocking" access to the plate (or base) can only be considered obstruction when the runner is in close enough proximity to the plate/base such that the runner has to consider how he is going to get around the fielder. Having said that, I still think it is obstruction on the catcher because, as the runner gets much closer to the plate, the catcher is *still* blocking access without possession of the ball. But, in the freeze frame at 2:30, I think that it is too soon to consider this obstruction. The catcher has time to get his left foot out of the way. The problem is that he doesn't.
I like that "judgment" is referred to several times. That's the key. Many calls depend on the judgment of the officials, and aren't as absolute as they may appear. Good judgment is a key to good umpiring, and more important than absolutely applying the rules.
@@MwD676 - I think I get what you mean. I feel you mean if an umpire can support any "ruling" as long as it is supported by the rules. Judgment is a little different. An umpire must "judge" fair/foul, safe/out, and catch/no catch, and, of course, that judgment is based on the rules, but not entirely explained by the rules. Again, I reiterate that "judgment" is key, and an important part of officiating. Knowledge of the rules is important in that regard, but it does not mean rules have to be absolutely applied in all instances as long as the rules are applied equally and fairly throughout. For example, I had a pitcher who was not giving enough of a stop from the set position, and I warned him, but it was obvious it wasn't giving him any advantage, so why call the balk or the illegal pitch every time? The idea is to keep the game as fair and even as possible.
I don't see MC. But I think there's a good case for obstruction, like you said, I as well didn't see it the first time. You do see the kid slow down on his run when the catcher crossed the basepath. Good video!
Obstruction could have been called on the third baseman for causing the second runner to swing wide. The third baseman took away the inside part of the bag from the runner. I don’t believe contact is required to call obstruction here.
The reason the initial play is obstruction is that F2 never possesses the ball. I think that referring to the initial obstruction by F2 as “blocking the plate” has lead some to confusion about with which rule/code we are dealing. OBR has a plate blocking rule which has been interpreted differently than obstruction at other bases. This year, MLB is trying to make that more consistent at all bases with the POE. But it is still technically a different rule.
In OBR with a drawn in infield or throw from the pitcher there is no obstruction for blocking the path as there isn’t time for the catcher to get in a legal position.
Okay. 1) the catcher can't be called for obstruction until he impedes the runner, correct. So just being in the base path without the ball isn't obstruction until it impedes the runner, correct? 2) if this is OBR, don't we have obstruction type A? Which would be a dead ball immediately? Runner safe at home, other runners placed where they would have been had there not been obstruction? Thanks for the interesting videos.
This is my take on nfhs also, catcher just being there isn't obstruction in nfhs. He catcher gains possession before contact with the runner, there is no obstruction. That was always my understanding, which is widely different than the newish obr rule on it.
I think the umps got it right overall, but also I'll be making a note of this and look out for any signs it's being remembered and making the game get more chippy. I don't want to overumpire, but I want to be alert enough to try and defuse things with warnings before things get out of hand.
On 1 he did impede the runner though. Doesnt need to be contact to be impeded. The runner has to start slowing down or going around (because he cant just run into him or risk being called for malicious contact and he had no or a limited path to the base if a player is standing there) So on 1 he was impeded eventually, but no play was made on that runner so doesnt matter. 2 tough to say whether he was impeded or not. On that type play I think the correct call was made. He was out easily and too far away to really say he could have made it past the pitcher and any impedement matter with the catcher.
@@auzmo I know he was eventually impeded. My argument is that obstruction can't be called by the umpire until two things occur.... 1) defensive player, without possession of the ball, is in the base path, and 2) as a result, the runner is impeded. I.E. he has to slow down or alter his path. I've seen way way way too many umpires call obstruction when the catcher is in the path without the ball, but the runner is still 60 feet away and not impeded. Then, the catcher gets the ball, in the base path but before impeding the runner and tags him out. Is that obstruction? No. Because the runner was never obstructed. You can't call obstruction if the runner wasn't obstructed.
I believe that straddling the 3rd base line constitutes obstruction as long as the runner has no access to the plate. Since the runner is coming directly from 3rd and not rounding 3rd say from 2nd base on a base hit, this would be obstruction as the runner would have to change direction to gain access. The initial setup is the most important part of this play.
Assuming malicious contact on this play, the call would be the runner is out and the pitcher is ejected. 3-3-1m PENALTY: "If the defense commits the malicious contact, the player is ejected; the umpire shall rule either safe or out on the play and award the runner(s) the appropriate base(s) the umpire felt the runner(s) would have obtained if the malicious contact had not occurred." I like to remember this part of the rules because a play like this with malicious contact is a great example of when an umpire might officiate correctly, and everyone will be mad at them because they did so.
@@MercenaryJedi Sir, this is an internet forum. Citing the rules book is against the code of conduct. But in all seriousness, great answer and thanks for adding it to the chat!
Throw was from a "drawn in infielder" so catcher IS allowed to be there.no obstruction. Rule 6.01(i)(2) very specifically addresses this situation: "...It shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder)." 2nd runner going home pushes at rhe
You are correct that OBR does draw a distinction. NFHS does not. It'll be interesting to see the first play at the plate with the catcher blocking on an infield in situation. We'll see how they rule given the Points of Emphasis for MLB.
I came here for this. The miss on the difference in rule sets that allows the catcher to be in the path when the throw is from the P or drawn in infielder.
I think the umpires got it all right, but I would nit-pick that the plate umpire shouldve called obstruction on the 1st runner, but since he scored anyway, the play continues.
@@tubes-lut That would be the case on intentional interference to break up a double play. This is not that. It is not even interference. It is potential malicious contact, and it is just one out. (Also, we would normally refer to that guy on 1st as the batter-runner.)
On the first runner, how can it be obstruction when the runner is still 40' away from the base? Sure, he covered that distance in about 2 seconds, but to rule obstruction immediately seems silly. On the 2nd runner, he was much closer to home and obstruction would have been justified in my opinion. As we all know, opinions are like elbows...everyone has at least two, but since we're umpires, not bonehead coaches or fans, we need rules backing. I like it that Patrick always cites chapter/verse to support his interpretation. As far as malicious contact...not a chance. The runner barely got bumped with an extended-arms high tag as the pitcher had :01 to play with. Without someone being knocked into the middle of next week and no one injured, an ejection is not even CLOSE to being necessary. The plate ump never signalled anything, so I guess he had nothing on all 3 points.
Most of these are judgment. On the first part, I would say that is obstruction by the catcher for blocking the plate without the ball. But delayed dead ball so no need to stress. Part 2. I would not pick up obstruction on the catcher. Part 3. I would not call malicious contact
Giving the answer suppresses conversation and therefore prevents learning. Sometimes you need to leave it open so people have to think and hopefully learn.
@@charliegarnett9757 it's judgement. How do you train on judgement? You teach the rule, which he did. After that, you need judgement. AND he talked about how you view a play so you have good judgement. AND he talked about using getting together with your partner as a way to give you time to re-see and possibly adjust your judgement. He did everything necessary. The question is, how would YOU judge this play if you were the umpire. You can judge differently and still be correct assuming you're following the rules. You seem to want to poster of the video to teach the rules AND tell you how you're to judge this play. I'm a game, that's not how umpiring works.
@@UmpireClassroom That is the kind of instruction I want from a training video. Thank you. I watch enough games and see it called so inconsistently that I stay more confused than anything. I basically ask…did the runner slow down or alter path. If they don’t and the ball is caught and the tag is the first contact…I don’t have obstruction. But last year I saw a catcher cover the plate, make a catch with runner barely over half way from third. Out call overturned on review. I just cannot get my head around that.
On the replay I can see why obstruction could easily have been called and justified on the catcher with the pitcher fielding the ball and making the tag. The catcher has no business being in the baseline without the ball and having no part in the play. But easy to say on a replay.
My impression was that the catcher was anticipating a throw from the pitcher and was backing up to get out of the baseline and into a position to make a tag at the plate.
@@robertbrown7470 I agree. What would be your call if catcher did the same and the pitcher, instead of attempting a tag, tossed the ball to the catcher just as the catcher reached the plate with the runner still a few steps away from the plate? Would you consider that to be obstruction?
Always love it when players run full speed toward a guy with the ball and then get mad when a forceful tag is applied. Hey, want a nice gentle tag? Then stop running and give yourself up. But if you’re going all out, then I’m going all out, too … and our contact is unlikely to be gentle.
I think you do a great job ensuring understanding. For me personally I find it better for myself to learn the rulings with the video.
At 2:30, you say that "We should have obstruction on this play" because the catcher is "blocking" the runner's access to the plate. However, the runner is only about halfway to the plate. He's a good 50 feet away from the catcher. In that freeze frame, you are already declaring this obstruction. What if we move the runner back 10 feet? Would that still be obstruction? What if we move the runner back another 10 feet? Still obstruction? The point I'm making is that a fielder "blocking" access to the plate (or base) can only be considered obstruction when the runner is in close enough proximity to the plate/base such that the runner has to consider how he is going to get around the fielder.
Having said that, I still think it is obstruction on the catcher because, as the runner gets much closer to the plate, the catcher is *still* blocking access without possession of the ball. But, in the freeze frame at 2:30, I think that it is too soon to consider this obstruction. The catcher has time to get his left foot out of the way. The problem is that he doesn't.
I like that "judgment" is referred to several times. That's the key. Many calls depend on the judgment of the officials, and aren't as absolute as they may appear. Good judgment is a key to good umpiring, and more important than absolutely applying the rules.
I’m with you as long as you can explain your judgement using appropriate language from the rule book.
@@MwD676 - I think I get what you mean. I feel you mean if an umpire can support any "ruling" as long as it is supported by the rules. Judgment is a little different. An umpire must "judge" fair/foul, safe/out, and catch/no catch, and, of course, that judgment is based on the rules, but not entirely explained by the rules.
Again, I reiterate that "judgment" is key, and an important part of officiating. Knowledge of the rules is important in that regard, but it does not mean rules have to be absolutely applied in all instances as long as the rules are applied equally and fairly throughout. For example, I had a pitcher who was not giving enough of a stop from the set position, and I warned him, but it was obvious it wasn't giving him any advantage, so why call the balk or the illegal pitch every time? The idea is to keep the game as fair and even as possible.
I don't see MC. But I think there's a good case for obstruction, like you said, I as well didn't see it the first time. You do see the kid slow down on his run when the catcher crossed the basepath. Good video!
Obstruction could have been called on the third baseman for causing the second runner to swing wide. The third baseman took away the inside part of the bag from the runner. I don’t believe contact is required to call obstruction here.
The reason the initial play is obstruction is that F2 never possesses the ball.
I think that referring to the initial obstruction by F2 as “blocking the plate” has lead some to confusion about with which rule/code we are dealing.
OBR has a plate blocking rule which has been interpreted differently than obstruction at other bases. This year, MLB is trying to make that more consistent at all bases with the POE. But it is still technically a different rule.
In OBR with a drawn in infield or throw from the pitcher there is no obstruction for blocking the path as there isn’t time for the catcher to get in a legal position.
The reason the second play(R2) is not obstruction: The runner is tagged by the F1 before he can be impeded by F2.
Okay. 1) the catcher can't be called for obstruction until he impedes the runner, correct. So just being in the base path without the ball isn't obstruction until it impedes the runner, correct?
2) if this is OBR, don't we have obstruction type A? Which would be a dead ball immediately? Runner safe at home, other runners placed where they would have been had there not been obstruction?
Thanks for the interesting videos.
This is my take on nfhs also, catcher just being there isn't obstruction in nfhs. He catcher gains possession before contact with the runner, there is no obstruction. That was always my understanding, which is widely different than the newish obr rule on it.
I think the umps got it right overall, but also I'll be making a note of this and look out for any signs it's being remembered and making the game get more chippy. I don't want to overumpire, but I want to be alert enough to try and defuse things with warnings before things get out of hand.
On 1 he did impede the runner though. Doesnt need to be contact to be impeded. The runner has to start slowing down or going around (because he cant just run into him or risk being called for malicious contact and he had no or a limited path to the base if a player is standing there)
So on 1 he was impeded eventually, but no play was made on that runner so doesnt matter.
2 tough to say whether he was impeded or not. On that type play I think the correct call was made. He was out easily and too far away to really say he could have made it past the pitcher and any impedement matter with the catcher.
@@auzmo I know he was eventually impeded. My argument is that obstruction can't be called by the umpire until two things occur.... 1) defensive player, without possession of the ball, is in the base path, and 2) as a result, the runner is impeded. I.E. he has to slow down or alter his path. I've seen way way way too many umpires call obstruction when the catcher is in the path without the ball, but the runner is still 60 feet away and not impeded. Then, the catcher gets the ball, in the base path but before impeding the runner and tags him out. Is that obstruction? No. Because the runner was never obstructed. You can't call obstruction if the runner wasn't obstructed.
I believe that straddling the 3rd base line constitutes obstruction as long as the runner has no access to the plate. Since the runner is coming directly from 3rd and not rounding 3rd say from 2nd base on a base hit, this would be obstruction as the runner would have to change direction to gain access. The initial setup is the most important part of this play.
If you had malicious contact on pitcher, would that nullify the out made in that moment?
Assuming malicious contact on this play, the call would be the runner is out and the pitcher is ejected.
3-3-1m PENALTY: "If the defense commits the malicious contact, the player is ejected; the umpire shall rule either safe or out on the play and award the runner(s) the appropriate base(s) the umpire felt the runner(s) would have obtained if the malicious contact had not occurred."
I like to remember this part of the rules because a play like this with malicious contact is a great example of when an umpire might officiate correctly, and everyone will be mad at them because they did so.
@@MercenaryJedi Sir, this is an internet forum. Citing the rules book is against the code of conduct.
But in all seriousness, great answer and thanks for adding it to the chat!
Patrick, you said a bad word! A*s.
Hahaha. Great job
Throw was from a "drawn in infielder" so catcher IS allowed to be there.no obstruction.
Rule 6.01(i)(2) very specifically addresses this situation: "...It shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder)."
2nd runner going home pushes at rhe
You are correct that OBR does draw a distinction. NFHS does not. It'll be interesting to see the first play at the plate with the catcher blocking on an infield in situation. We'll see how they rule given the Points of Emphasis for MLB.
I came here for this. The miss on the difference in rule sets that allows the catcher to be in the path when the throw is from the P or drawn in infielder.
I think the umpires got it all right, but I would nit-pick that the plate umpire shouldve called obstruction on the 1st runner, but since he scored anyway, the play continues.
He could have called obstruction. But since there is no additional base award, there is no overt call.
Also the 2nd runner pushes at the tag from the pitcher.
Runner on first is out.
Also that exactly how you tag a runner in that situation
runner on first is out?
@@jametz66 interference by a runner who is out. The batter runner can be called out because R2 is out on the tag.
@@tubes-lut That would be the case on intentional interference to break up a double play. This is not that.
It is not even interference. It is potential malicious contact, and it is just one out.
(Also, we would normally refer to that guy on 1st as the batter-runner.)
On the first runner, how can it be obstruction when the runner is still 40' away from the base? Sure, he covered that distance in about 2 seconds, but to rule obstruction immediately seems silly. On the 2nd runner, he was much closer to home and obstruction would have been justified in my opinion. As we all know, opinions are like elbows...everyone has at least two, but since we're umpires, not bonehead coaches or fans, we need rules backing. I like it that Patrick always cites chapter/verse to support his interpretation. As far as malicious contact...not a chance. The runner barely got bumped with an extended-arms high tag as the pitcher had :01 to play with. Without someone being knocked into the middle of next week and no one injured, an ejection is not even CLOSE to being necessary. The plate ump never signalled anything, so I guess he had nothing on all 3 points.
Drawn in infielder there is no obstruction.
That's very true for OBR. That exception is not listed in NFHS
It would help develop skills better if you would give the answer
Most of these are judgment.
On the first part, I would say that is obstruction by the catcher for blocking the plate without the ball. But delayed dead ball so no need to stress.
Part 2. I would not pick up obstruction on the catcher.
Part 3. I would not call malicious contact
Giving the answer suppresses conversation and therefore prevents learning. Sometimes you need to leave it open so people have to think and hopefully learn.
@@MH-Tesla Then it is not training. If we want games called more consistently there needs to be clear instructions on how to call all situations.
@@charliegarnett9757 it's judgement. How do you train on judgement? You teach the rule, which he did. After that, you need judgement. AND he talked about how you view a play so you have good judgement. AND he talked about using getting together with your partner as a way to give you time to re-see and possibly adjust your judgement. He did everything necessary. The question is, how would YOU judge this play if you were the umpire. You can judge differently and still be correct assuming you're following the rules. You seem to want to poster of the video to teach the rules AND tell you how you're to judge this play. I'm a game, that's not how umpiring works.
@@UmpireClassroom That is the kind of instruction I want from a training video. Thank you. I watch enough games and see it called so inconsistently that I stay more confused than anything. I basically ask…did the runner slow down or alter path. If they don’t and the ball is caught and the tag is the first contact…I don’t have obstruction. But last year I saw a catcher cover the plate, make a catch with runner barely over half way from third. Out call overturned on review. I just cannot get my head around that.
On the replay I can see why obstruction could easily have been called and justified on the catcher with the pitcher fielding the ball and making the tag. The catcher has no business being in the baseline without the ball and having no part in the play. But easy to say on a replay.
My impression was that the catcher was anticipating a throw from the pitcher and was backing up to get out of the baseline and into a position to make a tag at the plate.
@@thatzwhat Probably but doesn't matter whether obstruction is unintentional.
@@robertbrown7470 I agree. What would be your call if catcher did the same and the pitcher, instead of attempting a tag, tossed the ball to the catcher just as the catcher reached the plate with the runner still a few steps away from the plate? Would you consider that to be obstruction?
@@thatzwhat Hard to say without seeing it.