Obstruction or interference?

[Melville]

A defensive player who is not in possession of a ball in play cannot obstruct a baserunner who is attempting to advance to a base and who is in the baseline.
Could N/A have ran into Murphy when Murphy stepped across the plate to grab the "batted ball" which ultimately ended the game?
A defender has a right to make the play and a runner may not intentionally run into him to prevent that from happening, but a defender without the ball may not step in front of a runner attempting to reach base.
Had N/A acted instantly and instinctively in making a move toward 1b, and the 2 had collided, it would have been interesting to see the call.
Murphy, without possessing the ball, stepping into a runner's path and causing contact could be obstruction.
N/A running into a player to prevent him from making a play would be interference.
Remember Allen Craig?
He was awarded the next base when he and Middlebrooks became entangled on a defensive play - and the call won a WS game for STL.
Middlebrooks was attempting to make a play and Craig was trying to reach a base.
Call could have gone either way, but the umpire ruled that Middlebrooks caused Craig to trip.
What if N/A had tangled up with Murphy and had likewise tripped and fallen?
Obstruction?
Or interference?

[sikeston bulldog2]

A defensive player who is not in possession of a ball in play cannot obstruct a baserunner who is attempting to advance to a base and who is in the baseline.
Could N/A have ran into Murphy when Murphy stepped across the plate to grab the "batted ball" which ultimately ended the game?
A defender has a right to make the play and a runner may not intentionally run into him to prevent that from happening, but a defender without the ball may not step in front of a runner attempting to reach base.
Had N/A acted instantly and instinctively in making a move toward 1b, and the 2 had collided, it would have been interesting to see the call.
Murphy, without possessing the ball, stepping into a runner's path and causing contact could be obstruction.
N/A running into a player to prevent him from making a play would be interference.
Remember Allen Craig?
He was awarded the next base when he and Middlebrooks became entangled on a defensive play - and the call won a WS game for STL.
Middlebrooks was attempting to make a play and Craig was trying to reach a base.
Call could have gone either way, but the umpire ruled that Middlebrooks caused Craig to trip.
What if N/A had tangled up with Murphy and had likewise tripped and fallen?
Obstruction?
Or interference?

Good debate. Since that play never happens, it’s not practiced. So several examples from both sides of argument might suffice. Good idea. Might be a no man’s play.

[ramfandan]

Wondering if the fact that Nado was still in the batters box affects the scenario… as Nado is not in the field of play yet.

To my knowledge the batters box is in foul territory .
So I would think that the rules regarding collisions may be viewed differently.
Love tohear a major league umpire explain the ruling in that very rare instance.

Thus discussion brought a thought, In NFL games they have retired Bondini ,head of offivisls, giving rulings on replays…
Basketball uses Gene Strratore .
Too bad MLb couldn’t have the same. Though he was poor ball/strike ump behind the plate, 40+ year Joe West was considered one of thr best rules ump in thr game.
He could enlighten fans on the rare controversial plays.
Right now, we are left to announcers who are not experts .
Let’s have an ump tell us. Would add to the game. MLB is behind the other sports.

[Melville]

Wondering if the fact that Nado was still in the batters box affects the scenario… as Nado is not in the field of play yet.

To my knowledge the batters box is in foul territory .
So I would think that the rules regarding collisions may be viewed differently.
Love tohear a major league umpire explain the ruling in that very rare instance.

Thus discussion brought a thought, In NFL games they have retired Bondini ,head of offivisls, giving rulings on replays…
Basketball uses Gene Strratore .
Too bad MLb couldn’t have the same. Though he was poor ball/strike ump behind the plate, 40+ year Joe West was considered one of thr best rules ump in thr game.
He could enlighten fans on the rare controversial plays.
Right now, we are left to announcers who are not experts .
Let’s have an ump tell us. Would add to the game. MLB is behind the other sports.

The box is foul territory - you are correct.
But home plate is in play.
N/A was entitled to step on or over it on his way to 1B.
Had Murphy and N/A moved across the plate at the same time they would have both been in an active base path - and Murphy would not have been in possession of the ball.
As with the Craig example, it is a judgement call for the umpire as to whether N/A would be guilty of interference or Murphy would be guilty of obstruction.
I suspect that if N/A had knocked Murphy to the ground the ruling would be interference.
And if instead the collision knocked N/A to the ground and impeded his run to 1b, it would have been obstruction.
If neither or both went to the ground, what then?
I think N/A would have had the better argument.

[Cusecards]

Interesting scenario.
I don’t know the legal answer but I don’t think Arenado would be entitled to collide with a fielder?
My opinion.
Also....for the Cards to reverse the outcome AND Arenado is 90 from first he’d almost have to “pancake block” Murphy to make a difference!

[Melville]

Interesting scenario.
I don’t know the legal answer but I don’t think Arenado would be entitled to collide with a fielder?
My opinion.
Also....for the Cards to reverse the outcome AND Arenado is 90 from first he’d almost have to “pancake block” Murphy to make a difference!

N/A would not need to advance to 1b.
He would have been awarded it automatically if the ump determined Murphy had obstructed.
Again, judgement call - just as with Craig when some saw "interference" and others saw "obstruction".
I recall it was hotly debated at the time.
But the umpire in that instance ruled for the runner.
I think N/A would have had the better argument because he was entitled to run to 1B with a ball in play and Murphy would not have been yet fielding the ball if the two had collided over the plate.

[ramfandan]

What I am still wondering is this ?
Is Arenado by rule considered a ‘ base runner’ in this scenario ?
Since he is standing in foul territory in the box, might the umpire rule by definition that he is not yet a base runner til he is on home plate and:or in fair territory ?

Still wish mlb could go to a retired umpire for tv coverage and give rules interpretations .
Baseball rule book is extremely complex.
Fans often think they know ruled they actually do not.
The classic is when a pitcher gets set, then turns to 2 nd base to get the runner back and 90% of fans at park yell BALK !!

Another is when fan reaches over a wall interfering with attempt to catch a ball. Sometimes umpires award a base runner to advance a base even score and fans yell. Hey, the runner MUST return to previous base.
Not true.. rules say umpires have discretion on base runner advancing in fan interference.

Just 2 examples
Maybe retired ump on TV could help educate fans.

[Cusecards]

Interesting scenario.
I don’t know the legal answer but I don’t think Arenado would be entitled to collide with a fielder?
My opinion.
Also....for the Cards to reverse the outcome AND Arenado is 90 from first he’d almost have to “pancake block” Murphy to make a difference!

N/A would not need to advance to 1b.
He would have been awarded it automatically if the ump determined Murphy had obstructed.
Again, judgement call - just as with Craig when some saw "interference" and others saw "obstruction".
I recall it was hotly debated at the time.
But the umpire in that instance ruled for the runner.
I think N/A would have had the better argument because he was entitled to run to 1B with a ball in play and Murphy would not have been yet fielding the ball if the two had collided over the plate.

Like I said an interesting scenario and we’ll never know what the call could have been?
As for Allen Craig in the World Series.....remember something.
The throw was well past the third baseman when the contact occurred.
The fielder was NOT in the process of fielding anything and he definitely impeded Craig.

[Baseball Savant]

If the hitter Immediately breaks for first and is tripped or contacted by catcher, obstruction

All other scenarios would be interference, as it would be obvious that the hitter created contact with catcher to avoid being put out.

Arenado was a garden gnome. Murphy pounced and thus had the advantage.

Game Over.

[spfldan]

great question Mel. When I umpired ( amatuer only ) I always operated that interference supersedes obstruction, and malicious contact supersedes both.

[ilcubuffs]

Very interesting baseball discussion.

Iglesias to the point of facing NA in .2 of inning given up 3 runs, 3 hits, etc. 25 pitches of which 15 strikes. Braves decided NOT to replace Iglesias even though NA was 2 for 6 historically, probably says alot about NA perceived decline.

Iglesias pitch hits bat and drops straight down to the home plate side of right hand batter. 2nd bounce looks like it hits the short side of home plate and then goes to front of home plate in fair territory. NA does not make a move from batters box until Murphy picks up the ball in fair territory - even then it could not be construed as running toward 1B.

The pitch was a strike, almost down central avenue. Why the half swing? As last hope why not ask 1B umpire his opinion? Granted probably not change the outcome, but at least challenge the play. Your team comes from down by 4 at least "fight" (figuratively) for them.

[Ordinary Man]

Melville, I know you and only you know just about everything there is to know...but quoting you:

"A defender has a right to make the play and a runner may not intentionally run into him to prevent that from happening, but a defender without the ball may not step in front of a runner attempting to reach base."

You can't have it both ways there bub. Until the catcher has MADE the play (in this case acquiring the batted ball) he cannot be interfered with by the batter/runner. So I see no fault for jumping out past the batter to get the ball. And (I've just watched it again a few times) the catcher immediately turned around and was facing the umpire when he tagged Arenado. AND, he left the baseline open as he did so. So I see no obstruction either. Batter out, game over.

And Arenado? You can almost hear him thinking "Well s#it, I gotta run", as he starts a stutter step and realizing he's a dead duck, just freezes and is tagged out.

[Bushiro]

Interesting scenario.
I don’t know the legal answer but I don’t think Arenado would be entitled to collide with a fielder?
My opinion.
Also....for the Cards to reverse the outcome AND Arenado is 90 from first he’d almost have to “pancake block” Murphy to make a difference!

N/A would not need to advance to 1b.
He would have been awarded it automatically if the ump determined Murphy had obstructed.
Again, judgement call - just as wihith Craig when some saw "interference" and others saw "obstruction".
I recall it was hotly debated at the time.
But the umpire in that instance ruled for the runner.
I think N/A would have had the better argument because he was entitled to run to 1B with a ball in play and Murphy would not have been yet fielding the ball if the two had collided over the plate.

If Arenado takes a step in front of home plate Murphy has to let him go by then grab the ball and tag him...if he can't then he steps out and throws to first...if Murphy runs into him without the ball and Arenado gets hung up...trips etc he should be awarded first base

[Melville]

Melville, I know you and only you know just about everything there is to know...but quoting you:

"A defender has a right to make the play and a runner may not intentionally run into him to prevent that from happening, but a defender without the ball may not step in front of a runner attempting to reach base."

You can't have it both ways there bub. Until the catcher has MADE the play (in this case acquiring the batted ball) he cannot be interfered with by the batter/runner. So I see no fault for jumping out past the batter to get the ball. And (I've just watched it again a few times) the catcher immediately turned around and was facing the umpire when he tagged Arenado. AND, he left the baseline open as he did so. So I see no obstruction either. Batter out, game over.

And Arenado? You can almost hear him thinking "Well s#it, I gotta run", as he starts a stutter step and realizing he's a dead duck, just freezes and is tagged out.

The question was never where Murphy was when he picked up the ball.
Rather, had BOTH stepped across the plate in the same instance and collided, who gets the call?
N/A probably wins that scenario because it that exact moment Murphy was not attempting to pick up the ball (it had not been called fair or foul yet), whereas N/A had every right to proceed to 1B.
I agree N/A froze and gave up.
Reminds of what my very first coach - a former college pitcher - used to teach: "First rule of baseball, play hard and never give up on a play - that is the right way to play the game".

[Wattage]

Wondering if the fact that Nado was still in the batters box affects the scenario… as Nado is not in the field of play yet.

To my knowledge the batters box is in foul territory .
So I would think that the rules regarding collisions may be viewed differently.
Love tohear a major league umpire explain the ruling in that very rare instance.

Thus discussion brought a thought, In NFL games they have retired Bondini ,head of offivisls, giving rulings on replays…
Basketball uses Gene Strratore .
Too bad MLb couldn’t have the same. Though he was poor ball/strike ump behind the plate, 40+ year Joe West was considered one of thr best rules ump in thr game.
He could enlighten fans on the rare controversial plays.
Right now, we are left to announcers who are not experts .
Let’s have an ump tell us. Would add to the game. MLB is behind the other sports.

The box is foul territory - you are correct.
But home plate is in play.
N/A was entitled to step on or over it on his way to 1B.
Had Murphy and N/A moved across the plate at the same time they would have both been in an active base path - and Murphy would not have been in possession of the ball.
As with the Craig example, it is a judgement call for the umpire as to whether N/A would be guilty of interference or Murphy would be guilty of obstruction.
I suspect that if N/A had knocked Murphy to the ground the ruling would be interference.
And if instead the collision knocked N/A to the ground and impeded his run to 1b, it would have been obstruction.
If neither or both went to the ground, what then?
I think N/A would have had the better argument.

Its mynunderstanding the fielder has a right to be in basepath while attempting to field a ball and the runner is out if he interferes with fielder fielding a ball. If the fielder misses ball as in allen craig situation and he no longer is fielding ball but is now in the way, he is now guilty of obstruction. Basically, if craig had run into the fielder while he was still fielding ball, craig would be out for interfering with the play, but once the 3b missed it, he no lknger had right so craig was now obstructed for running into him since he was no longer making a play but just laying in the way.

[No-Mo-Mo]

A defensive player who is not in possession of a ball in play cannot obstruct a baserunner who is attempting to advance to a base and who is in the baseline.
Could N/A have ran into Murphy when Murphy stepped across the plate to grab the "batted ball" which ultimately ended the game?
A defender has a right to make the play and a runner may not intentionally run into him to prevent that from happening, but a defender without the ball may not step in front of a runner attempting to reach base.
Had N/A acted instantly and instinctively in making a move toward 1b, and the 2 had collided, it would have been interesting to see the call.
Murphy, without possessing the ball, stepping into a runner's path and causing contact could be obstruction.
N/A running into a player to prevent him from making a play would be interference.
Remember Allen Craig?
He was awarded the next base when he and Middlebrooks became entangled on a defensive play - and the call won a WS game for STL.
Middlebrooks was attempting to make a play and Craig was trying to reach a base.
Call could have gone either way, but the umpire ruled that Middlebrooks caused Craig to trip.
What if N/A had tangled up with Murphy and had likewise tripped and fallen?
Obstruction?
Or interference?

What sucks is the Cardinals should have 8 more wins than losses right now.