How about this play: (Video link)Discussion Point: What do we have here? Obstruction? Fielder in the act of fielding? Interference? Safe? Out? Missed call?
What did Tom Hallion call? Did he call obstruction for the trip or did he think Pagan touched first base? Was this obstruction?
Because the possibility of Obstruction has been raised, this post shall be tagged with "Rule 7.06."
This cannot be obstruction since it is a fielder in the act of fielding. I view it as incidental contact between a fielder and runner since Freeman has a right to field the ball and Pagan has a right to the running lane. I believe Hallion must have seen the missed tag and assumed Pagan tripped over the base. But, in reality, he missed the bag, so he should be out once the tag is made.
ReplyDeleteNathan said all that can be said :-)
ReplyDeleteNo more discussion needed.
The umpire clearly didn't call obstruction here. It's more or less incidental contact here, although the fact that the F3 did stuck out his leg slightly, which ended up tripping B1.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat similar to the Case Study #2 - F3 missed tag, B1 missed bag. The question becomes: how did the umpire judge the "appeal" portion of the play?
If you watch Hallion after the call though, he points directly at Freeman a couple of times, as if to say the contact was the reason for the safe call. That leg dangling out there is always gonna get you in trouble as a fielder...
ReplyDeleteI could see that if in the umpires judgement he viewed Freeman purposefully stuck out his leg to trip Pagan that Obstruction could be called. Perhaps he did and that is why he was called safe, but I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise Pagan missed the bag, and was tagged out. He should be out.
Act of fielding, and out on the appeal tag.....missed call
ReplyDeleteI think Hallion applied rule 9.01c in this case. I think he judged that the leg kick that caused Pagan to trip was intentional, not incidental, and not an act of fielding the ball. Since this play is not specifically covered under the obstruction rule, he applied the ruling that he felt best fit. Had the fielder not tripped Pagan, he would have reached first base safely, so I think this was a good call.
ReplyDeleteHe just missed the call in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying this is what happened, just bringing it up as part of the discussion, a couple of these posts are saying that it cannot be obstruction based on a play being made. If it is deemed intentional, obstruction can be called even if a fielder is attempting a play. (i.e. you cannot dive for the ball, gain control, then reach out with your other hand and trip a runner just because you have the ball). That is not 9.01(c) - don't rely on that rule too much. Most often that rule is used simply because someone doesn't know where to look.
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say a fielder with the ball cannot trip the runner? It says a catcher "fielding" the ball can't, but a player with the ball, by definition, cannot obstruct.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I still want to see where it says you can't push a runner off the base.
I do think it is possible for a fielder in the act to do something unneccesary that is obstruction, something that is designed to keep the runner in tagging distance. While I'm not 100% sure that I would make that call, I'm not 100% sure I wouldn't. I can see where Hallion would call interference.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in real time, I can see where Hallion's angle on the play would lead him to believe that Pagan's knee had hit the bag. Since Hallion did not call time, as required by rule when a runner from home to first is obstructed, then I imagine that this is what actually happened.
I agree with Jon. If Hallion was calling obstruction, wouldn't this be a case of obstruction in which the ball becomes dead since a play is being made on the obstructed runner?
ReplyDeleteJust saw this play for the first time and have to admit, I think the foot was stuck out on purpose. Obstruction.
ReplyDelete