Tricky call

[angispeds]

Tricky situation last night and I’m honestly not sure what the correct call is. Runners on first and second 2 outs. Slapper at the plate so left side pulled in. Slapper hits a medium ground ball between third and short. Runner cuts in front of the ss who tries to run through her making contact and taking her self out of the play. She had called the ball not sure how loudly. 3rd base tries for the ball but it tips off her glove since it was more to ss and can’t make the play. Umpire says no interference because third base had a “play” In my mind this isn’t right because the easy play was to SS and it seems like the 3b was punished for continuing the play. Not that it matters but these are two sec commits so for your visualization the positioning and movement to the ball was appropriate. As I understand it this is probably a “judgement” call as to which fielder was actually making the play and I’m just disagreeing with the judgement. However if it wasn’t interference then shouldn’t it have been obstruction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marriard]

Tricky one because I wasn't there and no video....
But:

1) The umpire can only protect ONE fielder on an intial play.
2) If you protect the 3B, then the collision between SS and runner is obstruction and the runner would be protected from being out between 2nd and 3rd
3) If you protect the SS then the collision is interference and you have the runner out and this would be the third out, inning over.

As the 3B was able to get to the ball first and because she did try to make a play before it got to SS (even though it tipped off her glove and even if the SS would have had an easier play) I am probably protecting 3B and have the obstruction. Yes there it some assumptions in this decisionand yes it is judgement. Yes I am ignoring the 'call for the play from SS' and easier play - that isn't a consideration.

In the call, the umpire protected 3B - and I assume the runner going to 3rd ended up safely there. Even though you are meant to signal and verbalize obstruction, when there is a lot going on, many umpires forget or are not thinking about it while dealing with the action. When you don't and the runner is safe anyway, you are not going to mention you didn't even though if someone comes out to discuss it may be part of your explanation.

 

[The Man In Blue]

@marriard nailed it.

 

[angispeds]

Tricky one because I wasn't there and no video....
But:

1) The umpire can only protect ONE fielder on an intial play.
2) If you protect the 3B, then the collision between SS and runner is obstruction and the runner would be protected from being out between 2nd and 3rd
3) If you protect the SS then the collision is interference and you have the runner out and this would be the third out, inning over.

As the 3B was able to get to the ball first and because she did try to make a play before it got to SS (even though it tipped off her glove and even if the SS would have had an easier play) I am probably protecting 3B and have the obstruction. Yes there it some assumptions in this decisionand yes it is judgement. Yes I am ignoring the 'call for the play from SS' and easier play - that isn't a consideration.

In the call, the umpire protected 3B - and I assume the runner going to 3rd ended up safely there. Even though you are meant to signal and verbalize obstruction, when there is a lot going on, many umpires forget or are not thinking about it while dealing with the action. When you don't and the runner is safe anyway, you are not going to mention you didn't even though if someone comes out to discuss it may be part of your explanation.

So if this happens again the third baseman should just retrieve the ball in order to make it clear which fielder was making the play instead of attempting to make the play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Man In Blue]

It isn’t a matter of what the fielder does or does not do or who yells “I got it!” the loudest. It is a matter of who the umpire believes is making/most likely to make the play.

As @marriard said, plays like that are definitely HTBT (had to be there), so the best we can do is explain the logic applied. It is impossible for us to say if it was right or wrong.

Close Call Sports did a video on the protected fielder recently. I’ll see if I can dig it up when I am home. Essentially it was a similar play, but involving F1, F2, and F3 all converging … but only one can be protected.

 

[angispeds]

Gotcha TY!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Man In Blue]

Here it is (middle infielders, my mistake):

Interference Ends Tigers' 8th vs Phillies - Whose Protection is it Anyway?

All about MLB umpires, ejections, Replay Review decisions, close and controversial calls. Detailed rules and sports officiating analysis.

www.closecallsports.com

Lindsay also talks about the obstruction angle.