While I think that's obstruction and R2 should be awarded home, there's almost no way this gets caught in a two-man crew, especially with U1 in position B or C (U1 was in C). This isn't PU's responsibility, and it happens so quickly after the ball is hit that I don't think U1 here was able to see it. He's first looking to see if 3B gets it to make a play, then he's got to check if LF is going to try to go 2 for a play where he has coverage.
Agreed. It was obstruction but not a call I would expect a two man crew to make. They can't see that and they can't call New York. Probably not reviewable even if they could.
U1 was looking right at R2 and F6, no reason he couldn't or shouldn't have seen that. I don't see where it'd be any different on a 3-man or 4-man crew - in all cases somebody is inside in C on this play, and once the ball gets through the infield, obstruction of R2 by F6 or F5 is just about his only concern until the ball is fielded and a play starts to develop.
Play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
@@davej3781 GLASS HOUSES @Dave J! I see a lot of comments in this thread from you questioning the judgement of these two umpires and implying they made the wrong call. You are entitled to your opinion but you should keep it to yourself. In some of your comments you also critique the way they officiated this game. Unless you call a perfect game every time you step on a field you should keep your critique of other umpires to yourself. There are only two instances where it is okay to critique another umpire. 1) When the other umpire askes you for it and 2) When you are on location for the specific reason to evaluate that umpire. That being said, the play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of one (third) base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
Obstruction on the Shortstop 100%. Only when a fielder is directly making a play on the ball is when he/she given rights to run into the base path and impede a runner. The SS did was not making a direct play on the ball. The field umpire (his call) missed it, he should have stuck his arm straight out with a fist right away to show there was obstruction and in turn it would be a judgement call from there on the play at home. Considering how close the play was the base runner should have been awarded the run.
"he should have stuck his arm straight out with a fist right away to show there was obstruction " If im correction, this is a baseball play, not a softball play. There is no delayed dead ball mechanic. If you see obstruction, you yell "Thats obstruction" Thats all you do.
That mechanic (sticking your arm straight out) has not been used in years. The proper mechanic is to point at the obstruction and verbalize "That's Obstruction". Also, The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
@@davegregory2619 I respectfully disagree that he should only get third base. It is perfectly reasonable for a runner to score from second on a ground ball single to left, and he did not hesitate in his running around third and to home. His only hesitation was in getting around the obstructing shortstop. Had there been another aspect of the play that led the runner to decide to go home (bobbled ball, throw to second), then yes, awarding third only makes sense.
@@eauhomme Thanks for your response. There have been a lot of people in this thread saying these two umpires were wrong. I do not agree with the assessment that they were wrong. This is a play where the application of the rule comes down to the judgement of the umpire(s). They applied the rule correctly according to their judgement. They awarded a minimum of one base to the obstructed runner (third base) and in their judgement, he and no other runners should be awarded any additional bases. Had they let the run score siting the minimum of one base (third) and the addition of home, I would be saying the same thing. I certainly appreciate your judgement of the play. As a matter of fact, I agree with everything you said in your reply. All I am saying is these umpires applied the rule the way, in their judgement, it should be applied and that does not make them wrong. Just as if you were on the field and you score the run, you would not be wrong. That would be your judgement!
@@davegregory2619 And thank you for yours. I would be inclined to agree with your assessment if there was any indication that the base umpire saw the obstruction. He does not point, he does not appear to say anything, and (as much as you hate the old mechanic) he does not hold a fist out. He does not seem to make any reaction at all, and he was a little slow on his pivot with the play. So I don't think he saw anything, which means the judgment call is not whether he would have made home or not, but that there was no obstruction at all.
The batted ball carried the base umpire right in to the play, @01:04 he's probably looking past the runner towards the baseball but the obstruction occurs right in front of him. I'm not saying I would have got it, in hindsight, however it reminds me to look for that from now on. Love these videos.
Definitely obstruction on R2 from F6 and should be awarded home because of how close the play was. However, it looks like the PU was watching the ball and not R2 or R3. FU was in the C position and turned right after it was over. If neither seen it, they can't call it. You have R1, R2, R3, PU, FU in C position, and only two sets of eyes watching with the authority to make the call. R2 could have played smart baseball. trip over F6, fall, then get up and go. That would grab attention better than just swapping paint. The Umpires were both looking at the ball. Not sure why the Umpires were both watching the ball. One should be on the ball, the other should be on the runners. Which should have been discussed before the game.
Definitely obstruction but as a runner you can’t be scared to sell the contact and make it look more obvious, he hesitated and tried avoiding the fielder instead of keeping his path to 3rd!
This is obstruction. But once again, this is high school, and things like this are going to be missed. If you want to make sure things like this arent missed, get a 3 man crew.
Obstruction, the defensive player was not making an attempt on the baseball he then obstructed the base runners path to the next base. Tbf as a runner you’ve gotta sell the contact WAAAAAAYYYY more than what he did. Peace and Love
Definitely obstruction, and I would have awarded him home based on it. It is close enough play at the plate to assume that if no obstruction had occurred he may have been safe.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
clear type 2 obstruction by F6 (OBR 6.01(h)(2)), or if it's NFHS just plain obstruction, there's only 1 kind (NFHS 8-3-2). R2 should be awarded home based on how close the play was, he clearly would have been safe if not obstructed.
also, everything stands for the other runners. had that last runner been picked off 2nd, the out would stand because that runner was not affected by the obstruction
@@davej3781 i was looking at softball..."a. If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base that would have been reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball is called and the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction will be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there not been obstruction. An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed." My bad
It was obstruction type B of SS on R2 (play not being made on the runner). Play continues. Close call at home, answer the question: Wasn't the runner obstructed, could he reach home safe? If the answer is yes, runner is safe, run counts. (I would answer Yes on that one)
OBS, but the runner is only entitled to the base which, in the umpire's belief, nullifies the OBS. If I'm on the bags, that's 3B. Anything beyoond that and he's to his own peril. That's the rule. He's out at home.
I don’t know the different rules between levels of play but the call would be obstruction but since the batter moved beyond the protected base he is still called out.
No, he wouldn't. The Type 2 obstruction (there is no play being made on the obstructed runner) let the play continue. Afterwards, the umpire will judge if the runner would have reached the home plate or not, if he was not obstructed. Based on that judgment, he would rule Safe or Out.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
You call obstruction (delayed dead ball) but it's ignored because the tag was beyond the base of first-advancement. Since he ran past the next bag, third, he did so at his own peril. The umpire correctly ruled an out.
that is not the correct application of the obstruction rule in any ruleset. you must nullify the act of obstruction, how many bases the runner advanced is irrelevant. unless, in your judgment, the runner would have been out at home regardless of the obstruction, or if the runner stopped at 3B at then separately attempted to advance based on new action by the defense.
Dave. That is what he is saying. He said he would have only protected him to 3rd. Honestly the runner should be coached better to make that contact with a sound to gain attention. Hard one for the umpires to see. I would have awarded home if I had seen it.
As close as the play at home is, R2 probably would have scored had he not been obstructed by F6. Any benefit of the doubt should go to the offense; otherwise, you're rewarding the defense for their obstruction. I'm awarding R2 home on the OBS by F6.
@@davej3781 It is the correct application, assuming he, like me, does not believe that the runner would have certainly reached home safely without the obstruction. If the play would still be close, and I think it would have been, the judgment stipulation of the rule means that different umpires will make different calls here. That doesn't mean any one of us is necessarily wrong though.
@@thecardczar8764 The way OP worded it, "... once he takes off for home he's on his own", implies to me an incorrect application of the rule. however if his and/or your judgment is that the runner would likely or at least possibly still have been out at home absent the obstruction, then not awarding home would be a correct application of the rule. I STRONGLY disagree with your judgment, I think there is absolutely no chance he would have been out at home absent the obstruction, but nonetheless judgment is a separate subject from proper application of the rule.
Obstruction is a delayed dead ball call. The umpire signals the obstruction holding his feft fist out. If the dead ball is enforced, the runner is entitled to the next base. If the runner continues to run, the ball remains alive, and the the runner runs at his own risk. Here, the runner obtained the next base, and at his own risk, he attempted to make it home. The ball remians alive. The delayed dead ball is ignored. The difficulty in this call is that the observer sees that the runner would have made it safe at home had the obstruction not happened. But as the rule stands, the runner made his decision to go home well after the obstruction. The umpire odes not have the discretion to award the second base (here home) if in the umpire's opinion, the runner would have made it home had it not been for the obstruction. In the interest of the game, the rule allows for unintentional obstruction, and still a continued pay at the play at the plate, and a second play at second base. The umpire here got it right.
Play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
I agree. I do not agree with the comments that the runner should have been awarded home. He was obstructed on his way to third. You can't make the assumption he'd have scored on this play so I would not have given him home. I believe the out at home was the correct call. The runner advance to home at his own risk.
It's always so bizarre when someone, on a video meant to get different perspectives, says "don't question the onfield guys!" As long as we all understand that we have the benefit of extra time and replay, I say we question them all we like - if the goal is to improve our own skills and rule understanding and to perform better our next time out. Come on, guys - leave the sanctimonious cries to defer to the guys in real time on the sidelines. Everyone makes mistakes, and the world would be a better place if we all decided to learn from mistakes rather than try to shut down any conversation about them. So sensitive....
@@FactsMatter Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not "SO SENSITIVE". I could have worded things better in what I wrote. Instead of writing "Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires", maybe I should have wrote nobody should be saying they are wrong. They applied the rule correctly according to their judgment. That doesn't make them wrong. The rule says "the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." They awarded the obstructed runner the minimum one base (third) and did not judge that he or any other runner deserved to be awarded more bases. They even got together to talk about the obstruction at the request of the offensive coach. If you were on the field and judged the runner should be awarded home, then that is how you should apply the rule. It would not make you wrong. That would be your judgement and the correct application of the rule. A minimum of one base and any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction. It all come down to the judgement of the umpire on the field at the time. Just because you or anyone else in this thread do not agree with the judgement of the umpires on the field, in this instance, it doesn't make them wrong. That's all I'm saying.
@@MagSeven7 ah. yeah you can that's why it's called a judgement call. The reason everyone is saying the umps got the call wrong is they didn't call obstruction. That is incorrect, the awarding of home is a judgement but I think most agreement the judgement should have been to award the base, but they never got to that point because they missed the call.
Three things nobody is mentioning about this play/ appropriate rule. First, live ball/ dead ball. Obstruction is a live ball play where the play is allowed to continue and then sort it out based on the obstruction. Interference is a dead ball and then make a call accordingly. Except in the case of catchers interference where the play is allowed to continue and if the batter runner and all runners advance one base the interference is ignored. The only player in this situation that would have been giving interference protection was the 3b diving after the ball. Once it passes him, no interference. SS was not positioned close enough to 3b to have a possible play after the ball passed 3b. No interference. Second, positioning of the infielders. It appears as they are drawn in for a play at the plate. My “spidey sense “ would always be on high alert. Strange things happen when the infield is in, especially at HS level. Finally, mechanics. Since neither umpire pointed at R2 & SS and said “THATS OBSTRUCTION “ either they didn’t see it or felt it wasn’t obstruction. Unknown. HS used to have a foolish delayed dead ball signal, left arm out for this. My opinion, it was obstruction and on this play R2 should have been awarded home. The rule automatically covers the obstructed runner one base past the last base legally occupied at the time the pitch. After that it’s umpires judgment as to the outcome the play and what would nullify or correct the obstruction. R2 is clearly knocked of stride and slowed by SS. How this play ends is where judgement comes in. R2 is out sliding at home. Enforce obstruction and award R2 home. If he’s out by 5 feet standing up and tagged out the interaction with SS had no impact, no obstruction. Again mechanics. If plate umpire had obstruction on R2, he should have seen it, don’t make the out call. Kill the play and award R2 home.
Runner is out. Yes, obstruction. Runner only gets the bag going to. Obstruction is off if runner continues to another base. In this case, obstruction and Runner is safe at third regardless of outcome. Since the Runner continues to the next base, the obstruction is no longer in play.
Isn’t the runner only protected in between the bags in which obstruction happened? So yes obstruction did happen but the call should stand because he is only protected between 2nd and 3rd?
I concur with @Dave J, NFHS 8-3-2 is clear that all obstructed runners are guaranteed a minimum of one base + the umpire's judgement to put Humpty Dumpty back together. In this case, the field umpire has to communicate this and rule on it when it happens.
@@jlee2000 U1 was looking right at it, but I agree that doesn't mean he actually saw anything. He does seem to be explaining something to OC... I sure hope he's not saying he protected him to 3B but not to home, that would be wrong
@@davej3781 Yeah, just saying he seems to be looking at it but makes no indication that he saw it. Umpire should signal obstruction and let the play end. When the play is over, he and U2 can get together and award the right base(s) to the runner.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
Interference, safe at home. Impending the runner on second, and give him the base the umpire thinks he would have reached had he not been Interferenced. Umpires judgment
So obstruction would be a delayed dead ball right? Then isn’t there a judgment call as to if the runner would have made a close play? The runner definitely lost acceleration and time but to go 2 nd to home on such a hard ball seems like a tough call. The outfielder was throwing the ball before the runner was at third seemed like a bad send to me. I have the benefit of replay and zoom. If I had seen it in real time from the field I probably would have called obstruction and reversed the out call. But I can also make a case for a no call because the play was made at home and not at 2nd or 3rd. I’m probably very wrong so I will accept the hate you send.
@@kevinmckeever7653 I had forgot about Tejada. Had he kept running I believe the umpires would have called him safe on the obstruction. Will Middlebrooks 2013 World Series is another example.
@@Azagthoth12 If you think that after analyzing this particular play, that's fair enough. But the way you put it, it seems like a rule. And that would be wrong. He is protected until the base his speed and the ball's speed make you feel correct, after you analyze the play. If the batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first, but batting the ball against the outfield wall, allows him to round all bases and is caught just sliding to the home plate, it is within the rule to judge he would be able to reach it and call a inside the park home run, protected by the type 2 obstruction rule.
@@helviojr I made it sound like a rule? I added the "I think" in there to specifically let everybody know that I'm just winging my comment. I believe we are all spoiled by replay here. In real time, only seeing it once, with the ball hit that hard, and with the LF getting it back in so quickly.... I would have only protected him to third. With replay there is a great argument to get him home protected. But that isn't a luxury at this level.
I continue to find this argument puzzling; why is the runner not awarded home? he was out on a close play by a step or less, and the obstruction cost him at least that much.
@@davej3781 it’s judgement and yes it’s always gonna be an argument either way. So long as you know the rule and how to apply it you should be good. I just happen to agree with the call.
@@davej3781 The baserunner is only protected to the base that he is advancing to, therefore he would be protected to 3rd. If he chooses to advance home that is on his own and the result of the play has him out.
NFHS rule is that runner is awarded the next base automatically, umpire has discretion to award further bases if he believes the runner would have advanced to that base had obstruction not occurred. Seeing as the play at the plate was so close he could have easily been awarded home on this play had the obstruction been called
It’s obstruction on F6. It’s been long enough since I went through umpire training and actually calling games, but U2 is supposed to indicate Obs with an extended arm, possibly a point at the play, but since the play at plate wasn’t his to make, U2 would have to clarify at the end of the play, right?
baseball guys don't signal obstruction with an extended arm, at least not anymore... that's a softball mechanic these days. the baseball mechanic is to point at the obstruction and say clearly "That's Obstruction!" (but not so loud that it may disrupt play) on the play at the plate, if PU is not aware of the OBS call, it would indeed be up to U2 to call time and make the award.
That mechanic (sticking your arm straight out) has not been used in years. The proper mechanic is to point at the obstruction and verbalize "That's Obstruction". Also, The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
This is an easy obstruction call. Only time the fielder has the right to obstruct a runner is if they have the ball if are going to make a play on it. Short was getting in position to cut off the throw not field the ball.
upon review, clearly OBS.. mild but should have been called.. but with a 2 man system.. this one probably gets missed with the BU in C. If he's in B, this may get caught. That said, was it enough to award home? Let's just say I'm glad it was not one of my games. in this case, I may have let the play stand. IN NFHS, he's only guaranteed protection between 2nd and 3rd. Not sure if this play was close enough to award. though I expect if you poll 100 umpires.. it will be close to 50% in both directions.
That is obstruction by the shortstop. He had no play on the ball so he is not a protected fielder. The runner would be protected to the base the umpire believes he would have reached had there been no obstruction. I would’ve protected him to third on this play. Because he chose to advance to home, he loses the protection and he is out on the tag.
@@davej3781 There’s some judgement in play here. In my opinion, awarding him home is a bit much but I wouldn’t argue another umpire’s decision to award him home. He would’ve definitely been safe at third. Home is more questionable to me. Only my opinion. I wouldn’t argue it if home was awarded either.
I agree with this assessment of the play. It was clear obstruction, but I feel that the out should stand when in doubt. If you are doubting whether it should or not, then you aren't sure the runner would have made it there safely. I think you have to let it play out unless you feel the play was obvious, so it comes down to a difference of different umpires' judgment. No real right or wrong here, all told.
@@Quidproxo I certainly agree that there is judgment in play.. but you still have to make the correct judgment according to the rules. He was held up quite significantly, several steps, by the obstruction, and was put out on a very close play at the plate. By rule, he should be awarded home. Now if your judgment is that he was only minimally impeded, and most likely still would have been put out at home if he hadn't been obstructed, then I certainly disagree with your judgment but you are applying the rule correctly.
@@davej3781 “By rule”, he is protected to the base that the umpire believes he would have attained had the obstruction not occurred. That assessment could differ between umpires.
Obstruction on F6. By rule, all runners should be awarded any base they would have reached without the obstruction, but didn't reach because of it. The runner on 2nd would have reached home without the obstruction; therefore home should be awarded and 2 runs score on the play. In defense of umpires missing the call, the runner who was obstructed, clearly missed it too!!!
Tom, that is not the rule. The rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
If the umpire saw the obstruction he can call it. I don' t think anyone saw that as they were watching the ball. Can't call what you don't see. Of course you see the replay, umpires don't have that , so it's a no call.
Let's be real here. I have obstruction on the SS, but despite my wide view, multiple replays, and the title of the video suggesting what I should be looking out for, I didn't notice it until it was blown up in my face. All that to say that a 2-man crew, with U2 in that position, is hardly ever getting this call. One of the downfalls (and realities) of a 2-man system. This is a missed call, IMO, but not a blown call. Game on.
The Base Umpire was there and did not point to signal an Obstruction had occurred. It was a missed call. R2 would have been awarded home on that 'CLOSE' play.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51. "When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction." The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril! Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
I do long for the day when I see an umpire in an MJH video do something really right... quite a few sins being committed in just 15 seconds of baseball
Let me see if I get them all: 1) starting with FU. Not in set position. 2) didn't see and/or signal obstruction... one of the main things he's supposed to look for on this play. 3) starring down the play at 2nd before the catcher even releases the ball. 4) PU. Doesn't get into the wedge but goes to 1st base extended where he could be straight lined. Did I miss anything?
@@MH-Tesla the worst sins are by U1. He never moves, is still standing in his original position with the ball in the outfield and the runners advancing; he needs to move into the working area and back up a little to open his view of both 2B and 3B, while facing the ball. once the ball is thrown in, he's standing with his back to the ball - this is a deadly sin; he should turn with the ball as it comes in, and face the plate when the play at home is made, while keeping an eye on what his runners are doing (watch the ball, glance at the runners). Imagine there is a string from the center of your chest to the ball; that string should always be a straight line, it should never wrap around your shoulders; always be chest-to-ball, never have your back to the ball. While this play didn't blow up, it easily could have. Rather than staying at 2B, R1 could easily have tried to advance to 3B on the play at the plate, and U1 would have been 80 feet from the play with no angle.
@@davej3781 I think most of those mistakes are on field umpires because guys tend to treat being in the field as a day off. I think field work can be the toughest when done right.
@@MH-Tesla yes, absolutely, doing bases _correctly_ is a lot harder than the plate. you can muddle through and do a crap job on the bases and most of the time nothing bad will happen and you'll get most of the calls right by accident, but doing it right, especially in a higher level game, takes good training, experience, and work.
@@MH-Tesla GLASS HOUSES @Marvin Heyboer! Actually, you did miss a few things. Unless you call a perfect game every time you step on a field you should keep your critique of other umpires to yourself. There are only two instances where you should give your critique of another umpire. 1) When the other umpire askes you for it and 2) When you are on location for the specific reason to evaluate that umpire.
Definitely interference on the SS. The fielder has the right over the runner to the ball, but not if he’s not fielding the actual hit. The hit was nowhere near him and he needs to get out of the runners way.
what do you base that judgment on? he ran straight through to home without stopping, and was put out on a close play by no more than half a step. are you judging that the obstruction did not delay him by at least half a step?
Per NFHS rules (I don't have the exact citation at the moment), only one fielder gets that protection. In this case, the third baseman was the most likely to make a play, and therefore was the only fielder that could receive the right to play the ball in spite of the runner. By that rule, it is clearly obstruction, so the question is more whether that obstruction should have nullified the out at home, which is a judgment call.
Watch the 2019 Regionals Louisiana v Northern Texas I believe it was Marshal. Louque Going for the ball and it appeared that Shubert tripped He was the runner It was ruled runner interference
@@user-do4gj2yb6y doesn't matter what was ruled in some other game on some other play. In the play in this video, attempting to rule that F6 was in the act of fielding the ball would be absurdly incorrect.
IF IN THE UMPIRES JUDGEMENT THE RUNNER HAD A CHANCE AT 2 BASES THEN HE WLD MAKE THAT CALL! THE OUTFIELDER PLAYED THE BALL RIGHT AWAY SO THE RUNNER HAD NO CHANCE AT HM! SO HE ADVANCED AT HIS OWN RISK!
While I think that's obstruction and R2 should be awarded home, there's almost no way this gets caught in a two-man crew, especially with U1 in position B or C (U1 was in C). This isn't PU's responsibility, and it happens so quickly after the ball is hit that I don't think U1 here was able to see it. He's first looking to see if 3B gets it to make a play, then he's got to check if LF is going to try to go 2 for a play where he has coverage.
Agreed. It was obstruction but not a call I would expect a two man crew to make. They can't see that and they can't call New York. Probably not reviewable even if they could.
U1 was looking right at R2 and F6, no reason he couldn't or shouldn't have seen that. I don't see where it'd be any different on a 3-man or 4-man crew - in all cases somebody is inside in C on this play, and once the ball gets through the infield, obstruction of R2 by F6 or F5 is just about his only concern until the ball is fielded and a play starts to develop.
If the base umpire doesn't immediately make the call and the plate umpire sees it, he can and should make the call
Play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
@@davej3781 GLASS HOUSES @Dave J! I see a lot of comments in this thread from you questioning the judgement of these two umpires and implying they made the wrong call. You are entitled to your opinion but you should keep it to yourself. In some of your comments you also critique the way they officiated this game. Unless you call a perfect game every time you step on a field you should keep your critique of other umpires to yourself. There are only two instances where it is okay to critique another umpire. 1) When the other umpire askes you for it and 2) When you are on location for the specific reason to evaluate that umpire.
That being said, the play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of one (third) base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
Obstruction on the Shortstop 100%. Only when a fielder is directly making a play on the ball is when he/she given rights to run into the base path and impede a runner. The SS did was not making a direct play on the ball. The field umpire (his call) missed it, he should have stuck his arm straight out with a fist right away to show there was obstruction and in turn it would be a judgement call from there on the play at home. Considering how close the play was the base runner should have been awarded the run.
"he should have stuck his arm straight out with a fist right away to show there was obstruction " If im correction, this is a baseball play, not a softball play. There is no delayed dead ball mechanic. If you see obstruction, you yell "Thats obstruction" Thats all you do.
That mechanic (sticking your arm straight out) has not been used in years. The proper mechanic is to point at the obstruction and verbalize "That's Obstruction".
Also, The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
@@davegregory2619 I respectfully disagree that he should only get third base. It is perfectly reasonable for a runner to score from second on a ground ball single to left, and he did not hesitate in his running around third and to home. His only hesitation was in getting around the obstructing shortstop. Had there been another aspect of the play that led the runner to decide to go home (bobbled ball, throw to second), then yes, awarding third only makes sense.
@@eauhomme Thanks for your response. There have been a lot of people in this thread saying these two umpires were wrong. I do not agree with the assessment that they were wrong.
This is a play where the application of the rule comes down to the judgement of the umpire(s). They applied the rule correctly according to their judgement. They awarded a minimum of one base to the obstructed runner (third base) and in their judgement, he and no other runners should be awarded any additional bases. Had they let the run score siting the minimum of one base (third) and the addition of home, I would be saying the same thing.
I certainly appreciate your judgement of the play. As a matter of fact, I agree with everything you said in your reply. All I am saying is these umpires applied the rule the way, in their judgement, it should be applied and that does not make them wrong. Just as if you were on the field and you score the run, you would not be wrong. That would be your judgement!
@@davegregory2619 And thank you for yours. I would be inclined to agree with your assessment if there was any indication that the base umpire saw the obstruction. He does not point, he does not appear to say anything, and (as much as you hate the old mechanic) he does not hold a fist out. He does not seem to make any reaction at all, and he was a little slow on his pivot with the play. So I don't think he saw anything, which means the judgment call is not whether he would have made home or not, but that there was no obstruction at all.
The batted ball carried the base umpire right in to the play, @01:04 he's probably looking past the runner towards the baseball but the obstruction occurs right in front of him. I'm not saying I would have got it, in hindsight, however it reminds me to look for that from now on. Love these videos.
Definitely obstruction on R2 from F6 and should be awarded home because of how close the play was. However, it looks like the PU was watching the ball and not R2 or R3. FU was in the C position and turned right after it was over. If neither seen it, they can't call it. You have R1, R2, R3, PU, FU in C position, and only two sets of eyes watching with the authority to make the call. R2 could have played smart baseball. trip over F6, fall, then get up and go. That would grab attention better than just swapping paint. The Umpires were both looking at the ball. Not sure why the Umpires were both watching the ball. One should be on the ball, the other should be on the runners. Which should have been discussed before the game.
No need to focus on the ball once you know it’s a base hit. U-2 should be looking for obstruction and U-1 the touch of home and third.
Rockford HS. Looks like JV. I used to coach at EK. I appreciate your channel. Maybe I’ll see you this summer.
Definitely obstruction but as a runner you can’t be scared to sell the contact and make it look more obvious, he hesitated and tried avoiding the fielder instead of keeping his path to 3rd!
This is obstruction. But once again, this is high school, and things like this are going to be missed. If you want to make sure things like this arent missed, get a 3 man crew.
It's obstruction. R2 awarded home. I agree with the comment that in a 2 man very difficult to pickup.
Obstruction, the defensive player was not making an attempt on the baseball he then obstructed the base runners path to the next base.
Tbf as a runner you’ve gotta sell the contact WAAAAAAYYYY more than what he did.
Peace and Love
Obstruction Type B on the Shortstop. I would have awarded him home.
Definitely obstruction, and I would have awarded him home based on it. It is close enough play at the plate to assume that if no obstruction had occurred he may have been safe.
Interference on team fielding the ball
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
clear type 2 obstruction by F6 (OBR 6.01(h)(2)), or if it's NFHS just plain obstruction, there's only 1 kind (NFHS 8-3-2). R2 should be awarded home based on how close the play was, he clearly would have been safe if not obstructed.
also, everything stands for the other runners. had that last runner been picked off 2nd, the out would stand because that runner was not affected by the obstruction
@@davej3781 the ball becomes dead once the tag is applied so there would be no other play
@@billdavis8177 not under NFHS rules
@@davej3781 i was looking at softball..."a. If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base that would have been reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball is called and the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction will be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there not been obstruction. An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed."
My bad
@@billdavis8177 yep, softball is different. As a baseball umpire I sometimes get into the same trouble wading into softball plays
It was obstruction type B of SS on R2 (play not being made on the runner). Play continues. Close call at home, answer the question: Wasn't the runner obstructed, could he reach home safe? If the answer is yes, runner is safe, run counts. (I would answer Yes on that one)
OBS, but the runner is only entitled to the base which, in the umpire's belief, nullifies the OBS. If I'm on the bags, that's 3B. Anything beyoond that and he's to his own peril. That's the rule. He's out at home.
I don’t know the different rules between levels of play but the call would be obstruction but since the batter moved beyond the protected base he is still called out.
No, he wouldn't. The Type 2 obstruction (there is no play being made on the obstructed runner) let the play continue. Afterwards, the umpire will judge if the runner would have reached the home plate or not, if he was not obstructed. Based on that judgment, he would rule Safe or Out.
Clear award of home.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
Defensive interference cause fielded was in the Runner's running path to long
You call obstruction (delayed dead ball) but it's ignored because the tag was beyond the base of first-advancement. Since he ran past the next bag, third, he did so at his own peril. The umpire correctly ruled an out.
There is Defensive obstruction, but I would have only protected him to 3rd. Once he takes off for home he's on his own.
that is not the correct application of the obstruction rule in any ruleset. you must nullify the act of obstruction, how many bases the runner advanced is irrelevant. unless, in your judgment, the runner would have been out at home regardless of the obstruction, or if the runner stopped at 3B at then separately attempted to advance based on new action by the defense.
Dave. That is what he is saying. He said he would have only protected him to 3rd. Honestly the runner should be coached better to make that contact with a sound to gain attention. Hard one for the umpires to see. I would have awarded home if I had seen it.
As close as the play at home is, R2 probably would have scored had he not been obstructed by F6. Any benefit of the doubt should go to the offense; otherwise, you're rewarding the defense for their obstruction. I'm awarding R2 home on the OBS by F6.
@@davej3781 It is the correct application, assuming he, like me, does not believe that the runner would have certainly reached home safely without the obstruction. If the play would still be close, and I think it would have been, the judgment stipulation of the rule means that different umpires will make different calls here. That doesn't mean any one of us is necessarily wrong though.
@@thecardczar8764 The way OP worded it, "... once he takes off for home he's on his own", implies to me an incorrect application of the rule. however if his and/or your judgment is that the runner would likely or at least possibly still have been out at home absent the obstruction, then not awarding home would be a correct application of the rule. I STRONGLY disagree with your judgment, I think there is absolutely no chance he would have been out at home absent the obstruction, but nonetheless judgment is a separate subject from proper application of the rule.
Obstruction is a delayed dead ball call. The umpire signals the obstruction holding his feft fist out. If the dead ball is enforced, the runner is entitled to the next base. If the runner continues to run, the ball remains alive, and the the runner runs at his own risk. Here, the runner obtained the next base, and at his own risk, he attempted to make it home. The ball remians alive. The delayed dead ball is ignored. The difficulty in this call is that the observer sees that the runner would have made it safe at home had the obstruction not happened. But as the rule stands, the runner made his decision to go home well after the obstruction. The umpire odes not have the discretion to award the second base (here home) if in the umpire's opinion, the runner would have made it home had it not been for the obstruction. In the interest of the game, the rule allows for unintentional obstruction, and still a continued pay at the play at the plate, and a second play at second base. The umpire here got it right.
Yeah obstruction by the shortstop no play on the ball and he slows up in base path. How close the play at home was it definitely made a difference.
Play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
I agree. I do not agree with the comments that the runner should have been awarded home. He was obstructed on his way to third. You can't make the assumption he'd have scored on this play so I would not have given him home. I believe the out at home was the correct call. The runner advance to home at his own risk.
It's always so bizarre when someone, on a video meant to get different perspectives, says "don't question the onfield guys!"
As long as we all understand that we have the benefit of extra time and replay, I say we question them all we like - if the goal is to improve our own skills and rule understanding and to perform better our next time out. Come on, guys - leave the sanctimonious cries to defer to the guys in real time on the sidelines. Everyone makes mistakes, and the world would be a better place if we all decided to learn from mistakes rather than try to shut down any conversation about them. So sensitive....
@@FactsMatter Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not "SO SENSITIVE". I could have worded things better in what I wrote. Instead of writing "Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires", maybe I should have wrote nobody should be saying they are wrong. They applied the rule correctly according to their judgment. That doesn't make them wrong. The rule says "the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
They awarded the obstructed runner the minimum one base (third) and did not judge that he or any other runner deserved to be awarded more bases. They even got together to talk about the obstruction at the request of the offensive coach. If you were on the field and judged the runner should be awarded home, then that is how you should apply the rule. It would not make you wrong. That would be your judgement and the correct application of the rule. A minimum of one base and any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction. It all come down to the judgement of the umpire on the field at the time. Just because you or anyone else in this thread do not agree with the judgement of the umpires on the field, in this instance, it doesn't make them wrong. That's all I'm saying.
@@MagSeven7 ah. yeah you can that's why it's called a judgement call. The reason everyone is saying the umps got the call wrong is they didn't call obstruction. That is incorrect, the awarding of home is a judgement but I think most agreement the judgement should have been to award the base, but they never got to that point because they missed the call.
Three things nobody is mentioning about this play/ appropriate rule. First, live ball/ dead ball. Obstruction is a live ball play where the play is allowed to continue and then sort it out based on the obstruction. Interference is a dead ball and then make a call accordingly. Except in the case of catchers interference where the play is allowed to continue and if the batter runner and all runners advance one base the interference is ignored. The only player in this situation that would have been giving interference protection was the 3b diving after the ball. Once it passes him, no interference. SS was not positioned close enough to 3b to have a possible play after the ball passed 3b. No interference. Second, positioning of the infielders. It appears as they are drawn in for a play at the plate. My “spidey sense “ would always be on high alert. Strange things happen when the infield is in, especially at HS level. Finally, mechanics. Since neither umpire pointed at R2 & SS and said “THATS OBSTRUCTION “ either they didn’t see it or felt it wasn’t obstruction. Unknown. HS used to have a foolish delayed dead ball signal, left arm out for this. My opinion, it was obstruction and on this play R2 should have been awarded home. The rule automatically covers the obstructed runner one base past the last base legally occupied at the time the pitch. After that it’s umpires judgment as to the outcome the play and what would nullify or correct the obstruction. R2 is clearly knocked of stride and slowed by SS. How this play ends is where judgement comes in. R2 is out sliding at home. Enforce obstruction and award R2 home. If he’s out by 5 feet standing up and tagged out the interaction with SS had no impact, no obstruction. Again mechanics. If plate umpire had obstruction on R2, he should have seen it, don’t make the out call. Kill the play and award R2 home.
Obstruction, but I would only give 1 base if necessary. Not home also.
It’s type 2 obstruction, so delayed ball. Runner from second sohuld be given safe at home because he would have been safe without the obstruction.
Runner is out. Yes, obstruction. Runner only gets the bag going to. Obstruction is off if runner continues to another base. In this case, obstruction and Runner is safe at third regardless of outcome. Since the Runner continues to the next base, the obstruction is no longer in play.
Isn’t the runner only protected in between the bags in which obstruction happened? So yes obstruction did happen but the call should stand because he is only protected between 2nd and 3rd?
I concur with @Dave J, NFHS 8-3-2 is clear that all obstructed runners are guaranteed a minimum of one base + the umpire's judgement to put Humpty Dumpty back together.
In this case, the field umpire has to communicate this and rule on it when it happens.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that either umpire saw the obstruction.
@@jlee2000 U1 was looking right at it, but I agree that doesn't mean he actually saw anything. He does seem to be explaining something to OC... I sure hope he's not saying he protected him to 3B but not to home, that would be wrong
@@davej3781 Yeah, just saying he seems to be looking at it but makes no indication that he saw it. Umpire should signal obstruction and let the play end. When the play is over, he and U2 can get together and award the right base(s) to the runner.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
@@davegregory2619 you are embarrassing yourself
Obstruction on the shortstop, delayed dead ball, runner safe at home. Play on runner returning safely to second stands.
Interference, safe at home. Impending the runner on second, and give him the base the umpire thinks he would have reached had he not been Interferenced. Umpires judgment
So obstruction would be a delayed dead ball right? Then isn’t there a judgment call as to if the runner would have made a close play? The runner definitely lost acceleration and time but to go 2 nd to home on such a hard ball seems like a tough call. The outfielder was throwing the ball before the runner was at third seemed like a bad send to me. I have the benefit of replay and zoom. If I had seen it in real time from the field I probably would have called obstruction and reversed the out call. But I can also make a case for a no call because the play was made at home and not at 2nd or 3rd. I’m probably very wrong so I will accept the hate you send.
I'm with you. Obstruction on the ss, but I think that only protects the runner until he gets to third. Anything the runner does after that is on him.
@@Azagthoth12 oh I just remembered the Miguel Tejada play in the 2003 Alds!!!
@@kevinmckeever7653 I had forgot about Tejada. Had he kept running I believe the umpires would have called him safe on the obstruction.
Will Middlebrooks 2013 World Series is another example.
@@Azagthoth12 If you think that after analyzing this particular play, that's fair enough. But the way you put it, it seems like a rule. And that would be wrong. He is protected until the base his speed and the ball's speed make you feel correct, after you analyze the play. If the batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first, but batting the ball against the outfield wall, allows him to round all bases and is caught just sliding to the home plate, it is within the rule to judge he would be able to reach it and call a inside the park home run, protected by the type 2 obstruction rule.
@@helviojr I made it sound like a rule? I added the "I think" in there to specifically let everybody know that I'm just winging my comment.
I believe we are all spoiled by replay here. In real time, only seeing it once, with the ball hit that hard, and with the LF getting it back in so quickly.... I would have only protected him to third. With replay there is a great argument to get him home protected. But that isn't a luxury at this level.
Obstruction but I have the play standing. I would only have given him the minimum of the rule.
I continue to find this argument puzzling; why is the runner not awarded home? he was out on a close play by a step or less, and the obstruction cost him at least that much.
@@davej3781 it’s judgement and yes it’s always gonna be an argument either way. So long as you know the rule and how to apply it you should be good. I just happen to agree with the call.
@@davej3781 The baserunner is only protected to the base that he is advancing to, therefore he would be protected to 3rd. If he chooses to advance home that is on his own and the result of the play has him out.
Missed the obstruction but runner is typically only protected between 2nd and 3rd.
NFHS rule is that runner is awarded the next base automatically, umpire has discretion to award further bases if he believes the runner would have advanced to that base had obstruction not occurred. Seeing as the play at the plate was so close he could have easily been awarded home on this play had the obstruction been called
It’s obstruction on F6. It’s been long enough since I went through umpire training and actually calling games, but U2 is supposed to indicate Obs with an extended arm, possibly a point at the play, but since the play at plate wasn’t his to make, U2 would have to clarify at the end of the play, right?
baseball guys don't signal obstruction with an extended arm, at least not anymore... that's a softball mechanic these days. the baseball mechanic is to point at the obstruction and say clearly "That's Obstruction!" (but not so loud that it may disrupt play)
on the play at the plate, if PU is not aware of the OBS call, it would indeed be up to U2 to call time and make the award.
That mechanic (sticking your arm straight out) has not been used in years. The proper mechanic is to point at the obstruction and verbalize "That's Obstruction".
Also, The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
Not sure why so many people say that the base umpire would not see this. The batted ball would have taken his eyes right to it. Definite obstruction.
This is an easy obstruction call. Only time the fielder has the right to obstruct a runner is if they have the ball if are going to make a play on it. Short was getting in position to cut off the throw not field the ball.
upon review, clearly OBS.. mild but should have been called.. but with a 2 man system.. this one probably gets missed with the BU in C. If he's in B, this may get caught. That said, was it enough to award home? Let's just say I'm glad it was not one of my games. in this case, I may have let the play stand. IN NFHS, he's only guaranteed protection between 2nd and 3rd. Not sure if this play was close enough to award. though I expect if you poll 100 umpires.. it will be close to 50% in both directions.
That is obstruction by the shortstop. He had no play on the ball so he is not a protected fielder.
The runner would be protected to the base the umpire believes he would have reached had there been no obstruction. I would’ve protected him to third on this play. Because he chose to advance to home, he loses the protection and he is out on the tag.
So he was out at the plate on a close tag play, and you don't think the clear obstruction had anything to do with that?
@@davej3781 There’s some judgement in play here.
In my opinion, awarding him home is a bit much but I wouldn’t argue another umpire’s decision to award him home. He would’ve definitely been safe at third. Home is more questionable to me. Only my opinion. I wouldn’t argue it if home was awarded either.
I agree with this assessment of the play. It was clear obstruction, but I feel that the out should stand when in doubt. If you are doubting whether it should or not, then you aren't sure the runner would have made it there safely. I think you have to let it play out unless you feel the play was obvious, so it comes down to a difference of different umpires' judgment. No real right or wrong here, all told.
@@Quidproxo I certainly agree that there is judgment in play.. but you still have to make the correct judgment according to the rules. He was held up quite significantly, several steps, by the obstruction, and was put out on a very close play at the plate. By rule, he should be awarded home. Now if your judgment is that he was only minimally impeded, and most likely still would have been put out at home if he hadn't been obstructed, then I certainly disagree with your judgment but you are applying the rule correctly.
@@davej3781 “By rule”, he is protected to the base that the umpire believes he would have attained had the obstruction not occurred. That assessment could differ between umpires.
¹Obstruction the shortstopcut in front of the runner causing the free movement and created the out at home sc I ore the runner on second
Obstruction
Obstruction on F6. By rule, all runners should be awarded any base they would have reached without the obstruction, but didn't reach because of it. The runner on 2nd would have reached home without the obstruction; therefore home should be awarded and 2 runs score on the play. In defense of umpires missing the call, the runner who was obstructed, clearly missed it too!!!
Tom, that is not the rule. The rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
But I understand why the ump called it is hard to see
If the umpire saw the obstruction he can call it. I don' t think anyone saw that as they were watching the ball. Can't call what you don't see. Of course you see the replay, umpires don't have that , so it's a no call.
Let's be real here. I have obstruction on the SS, but despite my wide view, multiple replays, and the title of the video suggesting what I should be looking out for, I didn't notice it until it was blown up in my face. All that to say that a 2-man crew, with U2 in that position, is hardly ever getting this call. One of the downfalls (and realities) of a 2-man system. This is a missed call, IMO, but not a blown call. Game on.
Let’s really be real, the umpires kicked the shit out of this call.
No one is watching - the base umpire is inside and no way the plate umpire makes that call
the runner made it to third... no penalty.. should have never tried to score. blame the third base coach.
That’s just baseball. That would be a weak obstruction call.
The Base Umpire was there and did not point to signal an Obstruction had occurred. It was a missed call. R2 would have been awarded home on that 'CLOSE' play.
The play stands as called! While the runner going to third is clearly obstructed, the rule says he should be awarded a minimum of third base. It is the judgement of the umpires as to whether he should be awarded home or if he advances home at his own peril. Here is the rule right out of the 2020 High School rule book (Page 51). Due to COVID, there was no High School rule book printed in 2021 and the rule has not changed in 2022. Again, page 51.
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."
The award is from the time of the infraction. So here is where it gets a little squirrely. The rule says a minimum of one base from the time of the infraction, which would be third base. The umpire could award more bases if, in his judgment, the runner should be awarded more bases than the one to which he is entitled. In the judgement of these two umpires (and that is all that matters), the obstructed runner attained the base he would have been awarded, so they ignored the obstruction. The runner attained the base he would have been awarded and all other runners moved up one base so in the umpires judgment the obstruction should be ignored. Once any runner attains the base to which they would be awarded, they advance further at own peril!
Would I have called it differently than this crew? I don't know. I was not on the field. Nobody should be questioning the judgement of these two umpires. You would not like it if you were on the field and your judgement was questioned. In my humble opinion, they got it right.
I do long for the day when I see an umpire in an MJH video do something really right... quite a few sins being committed in just 15 seconds of baseball
Let me see if I get them all: 1) starting with FU. Not in set position. 2) didn't see and/or signal obstruction... one of the main things he's supposed to look for on this play. 3) starring down the play at 2nd before the catcher even releases the ball. 4) PU. Doesn't get into the wedge but goes to 1st base extended where he could be straight lined.
Did I miss anything?
@@MH-Tesla the worst sins are by U1. He never moves, is still standing in his original position with the ball in the outfield and the runners advancing; he needs to move into the working area and back up a little to open his view of both 2B and 3B, while facing the ball. once the ball is thrown in, he's standing with his back to the ball - this is a deadly sin; he should turn with the ball as it comes in, and face the plate when the play at home is made, while keeping an eye on what his runners are doing (watch the ball, glance at the runners).
Imagine there is a string from the center of your chest to the ball; that string should always be a straight line, it should never wrap around your shoulders; always be chest-to-ball, never have your back to the ball.
While this play didn't blow up, it easily could have. Rather than staying at 2B, R1 could easily have tried to advance to 3B on the play at the plate, and U1 would have been 80 feet from the play with no angle.
@@davej3781 I think most of those mistakes are on field umpires because guys tend to treat being in the field as a day off. I think field work can be the toughest when done right.
@@MH-Tesla yes, absolutely, doing bases _correctly_ is a lot harder than the plate. you can muddle through and do a crap job on the bases and most of the time nothing bad will happen and you'll get most of the calls right by accident, but doing it right, especially in a higher level game, takes good training, experience, and work.
@@MH-Tesla GLASS HOUSES @Marvin Heyboer! Actually, you did miss a few things. Unless you call a perfect game every time you step on a field you should keep your critique of other umpires to yourself. There are only two instances where you should give your critique of another umpire. 1) When the other umpire askes you for it and 2) When you are on location for the specific reason to evaluate that umpire.
Definitely interference on the SS. The fielder has the right over the runner to the ball, but not if he’s not fielding the actual hit. The hit was nowhere near him and he needs to get out of the runners way.
I love your content and I’m a subscriber can u plz feature this comment on your video? Thx
nothing, i would of given him thir base, anything past that is at his own risk
what do you base that judgment on? he ran straight through to home without stopping, and was put out on a close play by no more than half a step. are you judging that the obstruction did not delay him by at least half a step?
@@davej3781 im refering to giving him third
@@jaydenmorrison8666 and I'm asking why you're only giving the runner 3rd
@@davej3781 it was a minor brush, it slowed him down abit
the fielder has the right to the ball, if we are talking about the SS
Per what rule? I don't think "the fielder has the right to the ball" has anything to do with obstruction.
NO. F6 has no possible play on that ball, he cannot be considered to be "in the act of fielding".
Obstruction.
Per NFHS rules (I don't have the exact citation at the moment), only one fielder gets that protection. In this case, the third baseman was the most likely to make a play, and therefore was the only fielder that could receive the right to play the ball in spite of the runner. By that rule, it is clearly obstruction, so the question is more whether that obstruction should have nullified the out at home, which is a judgment call.
Watch the 2019 Regionals Louisiana v Northern Texas
I believe it was Marshal. Louque
Going for the ball and it appeared that Shubert tripped He was the runner
It was ruled runner interference
@@user-do4gj2yb6y doesn't matter what was ruled in some other game on some other play. In the play in this video, attempting to rule that F6 was in the act of fielding the ball would be absurdly incorrect.
OBSTRUCTION BY THE SHORTSTOP. BASE RUNNER ONLY GETS ONE (1) BASE IN THIS PLAY! HE ADVANCES AT HIS OWN RISK! OUT AT HOME!
IF IN THE UMPIRES JUDGEMENT THE RUNNER HAD A CHANCE AT 2 BASES THEN HE WLD MAKE THAT CALL! THE OUTFIELDER PLAYED THE BALL RIGHT AWAY SO THE RUNNER HAD NO CHANCE AT HM! SO HE ADVANCED AT HIS OWN RISK!