Ask UEFL - Right of Way Part 2 (The Obstruction Exception)

We were asked about a pitcher-batter-runner interaction during Sunday's Royals-Mariners game. Having established in a prior video that the fielder has the right of way to field a batted ball and that this right is retained as long as the ball remains in the fielder's immediate reach, we were asked if obstruction could ever be called instead.

To recap, the following simplistic statement applies:

On a batted ball, the fielder has the right to field it.*

At any other time, the runner has the right to run.

*Only one fielder is entitled to right-of-way protection.

The relevant rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10) ("Any runner is out when—they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball").

Visit Ask UEFL - Interference No-Call As CWS-CLE Collide (4/21/22) to see our analysis for this rule.

The follow-up pertains to Royals pitcher Josh Staumont's body movements in fielding a ground ball off the bat of Mariners batter Adam Frazier. We first establish that the batted ball remains within fielder Staumont's immediate reach, which means that Staumont retains the right of way.

However, we also notice that Staumont appears to stick his right leg into batter-runner Frazier's path while fielding the ball. The question is whether obstruction is even possible during a batted ball fielding situation and, if so, what is the standard at which time the fielder—who has the right of way—commits such a violation?

The answer lies within OBR 6.01(a)(10) Comment, which begins by discussing the catcher-batter tangle/untangle "that's nothing" situation (see INT or OBS - Hammering the Catcher Contact Home (8/6/18) to learn more about interference/obstruction plays at home plate), but then expands a principle applicable to all fielders: "“Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball."

Thus, one would have to rule that the pitcher intentionally tripped the runner or committed another "very flagrant and violent" act in order to call obstruction and award the batter-runner first base.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Ask the UEFL Analysis of Pitcher vs Batter-Runner Right of Way in Seattle (CCS)