Umpires TV: Obstruction Interference

[mothahen123]

OBSTRUCTION. obviously



[Baseball5030]

exposfan1 nailed it (probably because he posted the video, haha). The pitcher was in the runners lane before the ball had left the firstbasemans glove. The only time he's allowed in there is if he's fielding a ball, which in this case, would mean if the first baseman made a bad throw and he had to move into the baseline to field it.

[hockeygianst]

ummm safe or is it out??? hahah

[milpoolXXX]

So, maybe it is because I am new to umpiring, but I am still waiting to see the interference/obstruction from the pitcher.

Out (close play) at first.

[mrlaymansterms1]

@milpoolXXX no interferance can be calledon the pitcher milpool, only obstruction. Interferance is strictly offensive, obstruction is strictly defensive

[JawzJenkins]

Obstruction, the pitcher is not in the act of fielding the ball when he obstructs the runner. If he would have had the ball earlier or in the act of fielding it earlier, then no obstruction would need to be called

[exposfan1]

There is in fact obstruction, the pitcher cannot be in the runners lane...45 feet from the base, unless he's in the act of fielding the ball. This means that the ball must have left the first baseman's throwing hand, and be in the air, before the pitcher is allowed in the runner's lane.

exposfan

[davidemerling]

@exposfan1 There's no rule that specifically prohibits a fielder from being in the "running lane." However, a fielder (without possession of the ball) cannot impede a runner. It is not very clear in this video the extent (if any) that the pitcher impeded the runner. They do not show the whole play and it is very difficult to determine.

[johngerads]

Watch the video again, this is obstruction. The pitcher is impeding the runner.

[mesmeridium]

It cannot be number 1 obviously, because the batter is not hindering the defense.

Number 2 would have been possible if the pitcher hindered the baserunner. Had the baserunner been fast enough to run into the pitcher (on his legal right to the baseline within 3 feet) that would be obstruction.

So this leaves number 3 - the standing play.

The problem is with these plays is that they happen so fast and your decision has to be quick too. That's why I hate doing the umping job.

[Adecker152]

I would call this as a standing play. The baseline changes if there is an infielder in the way. Now if there was no contact there is no obstruction seeing that the runner can just run around them with out being put out because the base line then is curved around that infielder.

[exposfan1]

There is in fact obstruction, the pitcher cannot be in the runners lane...45 feet from the base, unless he's in the act of fielding the ball. This means that the ball must have left the first baseman's throwing hand, and be in the air, before the pitcher is allowed in the runner's lane.

exposfan

[2010walkerd]

@Adecker152 : I agree with Expos fan. I umpire and did a state championship last year and had this same play. If the pitcher has any part of his foot or body in the running lane, without complete possession of the ball, or if he is not making a fielding play on the ball, and his acts hinder or impede the progress of the runner, obstruction shall be granted. I see here that the pitcher impeded his progress of a straight line to the bag by detouring into the 45 foot lane.

[hipposmook]

you have to PLAY TO WIN!!!

[asp1007]

'Hayblue' You're DEAD wrong. Obstruction and Interference are both primarily about intent. For example if a batter runner is headed to first base and throws his arms in the air to block the fielder's view, doesn't touch the ball, and the the throw is not in time: The batter runner is out and the play is dead for interference.

Focus on the intent of the action. In this case the answer is 2 because the pitcher did not need to be blocking the runner and was intentionally running in the path.

[exposfan1]

Hello Asp

I must inform you that intent has nothing to do with it...Umpires cannot judge intent. We can only adjudicate the play as we see it, and of course this does not mean looking in to the heart of the player to judge their intent.

We didn't make up these answers, in fact they were shot under the strict guidlines of Jim Evans at the Academy of Professional Umpiring. Go to my Facebook page, under David Yorke, and you'll see some production photos of that shoot,

dy

[michael15544]

The pitcher was fielding a thrown ball from 1st. No obstruction.

[jimbo4222]

The runner didnt even touch the base

[mrlaymansterms1]

@jimbo4222 The runner does not have to touch the base. Obstruction is this base awarded

[knducay]

#2!

[hayblue1]

It is only obstruction if in the umpire's judgement the defense hindered the runner.

Being in the way is not obstruction. Being in the way and causing the runner to slow down, stop, turn around, change their path, etc. is obstruction.

In order to have obstruction or interfernce there has to be a cause AND effect.

[xdylancoolman]

1. runner was running on the line, must be outside.

[jairodrigue]

The runner gets no clear lane to the base a fielder has the right to be in the runners lane. If the pitcher made a deliberate blockage of the base or if he dropped the throw and had to go more than one step to retrieve it would be obstruction. The position the pitcher was in gave him the option to tag the runner instead of the forced out. #3 runner out on close play.

[apags15]

its obstruction because the pitcher was in the running lane.

[thebigapple3]

It's a no call. The pitcher never even impeded the runner's progress. Out or safe as the case may be. Had he impeded the runner, he was still in the act of gloving an approaching ball.

[knducay]

answer: 2

[thatbiggreekguy]

if the runner made contact with the pitcher then it would be obstruction

[buddaman200522]

There does not have to be contact to be obstruction

[thatbiggreekguy]

true i dun know wat i was thinkin. it was weird i just recently did a game obstruction was an issue. but in this case i would udge it on if the runner slowed down.

[asp1007]

The pitche did not have any reason to be in the running lane. he cut in front of the batter intentionally, while ths doesn't legally matter with respects to the rules. Take into consideration the fact that the pitcher had to have the intention to hinder the runner's progress... in this case, if the runner even had to alter his path to get to the base he is called safe, the ball is dead, and all runners advance only if forced.

[buddaman200522]

NFHS-2-22-1 & 3

1. Obstruction is an act by a fielder, any member of the densive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner changes the pattern of play. 3. The fielder without possession of the ball denies accress to the base.

[Scooter2Putt]

It's called the "runner's lane" for a REASON!

"Physical contact"W/the pitcher or any defensive player ISN'T NECESSARY-just the POSSIBILITY of 'contact'.IF the pitcher was10 -15 feet in front of the runner&you felt that the runner COULD NOT&WAS NOT 'hindered'by the player,then I would THINK twice about CALLING THAT interference!

I believe that it's a "judgment" call in THAT situation,but it better be OBVIOUS2ALL parties that there was NO possibility of the defender causing the runner 2slow down!

[Xman1231]

im going for 2 also what mikecar said

[chuckfan1]

Uhhh, no it doesnt give the answer, what was it? In the video, the pitcher IS in the lane a step ahead of the runner....nothing yet. When the pitcher does receive the ball, notice he has stepped out of the lane, and onto the base....I got nothing..

[mikecar]

For me the answer is 2 because the pitcher is in runner lane