Another obstruction/interference question ...

[CoogansBluff]

Runner on second, grounder up the middle on SS side of second base.

SS and runner at second collide, almost instantaneously. Shortstop was positioned around the base path and immediately went after the ball, and paths met.

Umpire rules obstruction on shortstop, and that's a judgment call that can't be settled unless I provide video, which I can't.

But what is important to know in this case?

In short, in call that play obstruction, what is the umpire telling us?

What if umpire believed the SS had no realistic chance of putting a glove on the ball, can that still be obstruction, since the fielder certainly had not given up on it and was moving as any SS would've on that play?

Is it significant that merely knocking the ball down would've saved a run? What if umpire believes it was very unlikely the shortstop could've made a 6-3 play there, but had a reasonable shot and keeping the ball in the infield?

Is the umpire saying, in his opinion, that the fielder had no shot to do anything meaningful on this play?

 

[Sweet Lou]

If it was on obstruction of the SS he had to rule she wasn't making a play on the ball as was merely trying to stop the runner from advancing. Otherwise he got the call wrong.

 

[quincy]

Is the umpire saying, in his opinion, that the fielder had no shot to do anything meaningful on this play?

Yes, hard call. It almost always goes to the fielder. You might have Ozzie at SS. The fielder owns the field until the ball gets by her.

 

[CoogansBluff]

In that case, he blew it. ... Fielder was most definitely making a move toward the ball. Happened very quick. Unlikely she would've made the 6-3 play, IMO, but could not be ruled out.

 

[riseball]

In that case, he blew it. ... Fielder was most definitely making a move toward the ball. Happened very quick. Unlikely she would've made the 6-3 play, IMO, but could not be ruled out.

Does not matter if she could have executed the 6 -3 as a "play" does not require the ability to make an out. Did she have a reasonable chance of getting to the ball? If the answer is yes, then it is a blown call. To your point she may have had the ability to keep the ball in the infield. Assuming less than 2 outs I am most likely sending that runner at 1st to 2nd and will gladly trade an out for at 2nd for a run. If the ball stays in the infield it is much more difficult.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Does not matter if she could have executed the 6 -3 as a "play" does not require the ability to make an out. Did she have a reasonable chance of getting to the ball? If the answer is yes, then it is a blown call. To your point she may have had the ability to keep the ball in the infield. Assuming less than 2 outs I am most likely sending that runner at 1st to 2nd and will gladly trade an out for at 2nd for a run. If the ball stays in the infield it is much more difficult.

It was two outs, runner at second, no runner at first. Keeping ball in infield would've kept the runner from scoring.

I guess an umpire could always argue that she had no reasonable chance of getting glove on the ball, so perhaps it's always a judgment call in the end. In this case, ball is hit, fielder instinctively moves toward its path, and ball was still had not gotten past second base and was slightly on the SS side of second.

 

[MTR]

Runner on second, grounder up the middle on SS side of second base.

SS and runner at second collide, almost instantaneously. Shortstop was positioned around the base path and immediately went after the ball, and paths met.

Umpire rules obstruction on shortstop, and that's a judgment call that can't be settled unless I provide video, which I can't.

But what is important to know in this case?

In short, in call that play obstruction, what is the umpire telling us?

What if umpire believed the SS had no realistic chance of putting a glove on the ball, can that still be obstruction, since the fielder certainly had not given up on it and was moving as any SS would've on that play?

Is it significant that merely knocking the ball down would've saved a run? What if umpire believes it was very unlikely the shortstop could've made a 6-3 play there, but had a reasonable shot and keeping the ball in the infield?

Is the umpire saying, in his opinion, that the fielder had no shot to do anything meaningful on this play?

The OBS call indicates that the umpire believed the SS did not have a play on the batted ball.

If it was on obstruction of the SS he had to rule she wasn't making a play on the ball as was merely trying to stop the runner from advancing. Otherwise he got the call wrong.

Well, that simply is not true. There in no need for the umpire to believe the defender is doing anything.