I loved that he did. Close call sports has been around far longer and occupies the more niche space of rule interpretation and umpire performance. Jomboy arrived later and has blown up in popularity, rightfully so because he brought light into the world of arguments and made the overall breakdown exciting and fun. Jomboy is sort of like the Reddit/tiktok version of breakdowns. Fun and entertaining with some potential to learn. Close call is like the LinkedIn version of breakdowns. Highly technical/educational and not necessarily focused on fun and entertainment.
I don’t like the way Hunter dealt with Dave Roberts. Roberts was allowed to get an explanation you can’t just back away from it immediately if it’s a weird call, at least explain part of it and then walk away if he doesn’t like. This was very unprofessional I hate to say
At some point if the manager doesn't get off the field he has to go. I really don't think Hunter Wendelstedt had a choice here. I think this was handled a lot better than the situation in April.
I watched it in real time. I thought the ump gave the leniency to the player arguing and once the manager showed up he was out of patience. I was a little bit surprised Rojas wasn't tossed first. Wish we would have been given the real time replay for the whole event in this video.
The problem is we don’t know what Dave said…on the surface the optics do not look good. We have an unusual, irregular call that involves interpretation of a rule. This is not all about judgement. So, yes…a manager should be able to get some context on a weird play like this. The fact that Hunter has both his hands up before they even start a discussion is not the best look. And I am also open to the possibility that Dave may have said some magic words that lead to the ejection. We just don’t know.
@@vincentwendt720 I do agree but maybe just explain it what miggy Rojas said and if he doesn’t want the explanation, then yes absolutely toss him. But Hunter did do a better job than what happened in April for sure. This situation is just quick for me
@@qu54re65 It seemed to me like Wendelstedt gave Roberts a fair opportunity to voice his opinion. At some point the game has to resume. I think from a game management prospective, this is a great improvement. I like how this was handled.
It’s funny: Hunter Wendlstedt literally runs a umpire academy that feeds to the minor leagues. He does not practice what he teaches. Good call, but horrible game management. He’s also horrible at calling a game behind the plate.
I guess I don't understand this one. The fielder had the ball and was in the act of placing the tag when the contact occurred. So, how is that obstruction?
I don't know if the way the rule is written but he's obstructing Bohm (He's between Bohm and the base) before he has the ball.. I'm probably incorrect on that.
Because the obstructing act was ruled to have started prior to that point. Call quality notwithstanding that’s how the technical aspect of the play is officiated.
@@CloseCallSports ok, thanks! So, if the runner's foot had slid between the fielder's legs and no contact occurred, would that still be obstruction? I guess what I'm getting at is this - how can the fielder not obstruct if in the base path with the ball in hand? And isn't it in the runner's best interest to initiate contact as that makes the obstruction call easy? Seems like that's a bad precedent.
@@andrewszaflarski5379 Yes, fielder positioning is treated like a cartesian plane, as opposed to the actual 3D properties of straddling - like the space between the fielder's leg is an extension of the fielder. In other words, requiring a runner to slide through a straddle is still considered a block. The way the rule is written makes this call *technically* correct though I disagree with the broadcaster that it's within the spirit of the rule.
@@andrewszaflarski5379if the fielder had been a half step back he would not have entered the base path before he had the ball and it would not have been obstruction. That being said, I hope this call is reviewed and the rules/instructions tweaked because I don't think most people would like this to be a correct call.
For the most part I agree. Although, when a manager won't get off the field I don't know what other choice he has. I think this was handled a lot better than the situation in April.
No, the ejection is bad. It's like you didn't even finish watching the video. The call may not be challenged, so the manager is allowed to get an explanation from the umpire. Hunter Wendelstedt couldn't even be bothered to say the word "obstruction" before he tossed Roberts.
@@neohippie7319 Having his hands up stopping Roberts was atrocious and inexcusable, yes. But without watching the whole thing start to finish - not an edited version - it's impossible to know how quick a toss that was. His attitude was horrible regardless though.
The kind of obstruction the rules were designed to stop was where the fielder literally was blocking the runner from touching the base, not simple touching.
@@tervalas says who? I’d love an excerpt. Also, the 3rd baseman impeded Bohm’s front-most part of the slide, the only part needed to be blocked to completely prevent him from touching 3rd. The only question the Ump needed to answer to make that call was, “did Rojas 100% need to step in front of his slide to make the play?” Which I don’t really know. It was a weird call, but not a bad call per se.
@@salommy Rojas had the ball already in his glove. This allows him to take a position to make an out. As Jomboy points out, Wendlstadt wasn't even paying attention to when the ball got there, only looking at the feet. The dude was out in my opinion. Why replay is needed for such calls.
Hunter Wendelburger is soft. Just explain the call without going bugeyed screaming at Rojas and don’t turn your back to a manager like that when they’re not even arguing. Hope he joins Angel in retirement soon.
First, Im a Phils fan. 2nd, Im an umpire. 3rd, by the "book" maybe this is obstruction, but I always say, if he DIDNT call it, nobody wouldve said a word. But, my biggest problem is with MLB not allowing this to be reviewable. Im sure Hunter wouldve liked a 2nd look. Maybe it wouldnt change the call, but that aspect(replay) at least feels better when it happens, IMO
I definitely see both sides of this call. While technically correct (the best kind of correct) by the letter of the rule, I do agree with the mindset this might not be the spirit of the rule.
Watching this slowed down, it really looks like Rojas fielded the ball before he got into the runner's path. I don't like this one being called obstruction.
It’s a dumb one where it’s probably correct, however you could easily find this type of contact if not worse in every single game played this season if you’re really looking for it.
I'll admit, Hunter has done things that I disagreed with, but this is the rule. He didn't throw out Roberts right away. He let him argue a little bit, then warned him to stop. When Roberts didn't get off the field he got tossed. This is how MLB wants obstruction to be enforced. I saw this called several times in spring training under very similar circumstances. The fact that MLB executives have not refuted this call tells me that this is how they want the rule to be enforced.
I watched this video and listened to Lindsay’s explanation and I still don’t see the obstruction. I still don’t understand why this was called obstruction. The fielder was not obstructing the runner until after he had the ball. Makes no sense at all.
The fielder entered the runner's path to the bag before the fielder had the ball. Without the ball, he's not entitled to be there. Not one foot, not one knee, not his entire body between the runner and the bag. That's the obstruction.
@@voxelation so you are saying that a fielder is NEVER allowed to be anywhere between a runner and the base without the ball? EVER? Like if a fielder steps 1 inch in to the path while the runner is 45 feet away from the base then that is obstruction? I don’t think that is the rule. A fielder can be in the runners path without the ball. The question is did the fielder actually hinder or obstruct the runner? And the fielder is allowed to be in the path of the runner without the ball if they are in the process of fielding a batted or thrown ball and the umpire judges that they had to be there and could not have been anywhere else.
@@theburnettsthe issue here is that the fielder didnt “need” to position his body in the basepath of the runner in order to catch the ball and make a tag attempt. Watch the video around 1:43 ish. Rojas committed obstruction when he entered the runners basepath. He planted his body between the runner and the base in order to make the attempt to catch the ball. That is the obstruction.
@@johncaccamo I get what you are saying but to me that interpretation is crazy. He had to be where he was to catch the ball! Are the rules now requiring a fielder to go out of his way to be in a bad position to catch a throw simply because he wants to avoid obstruction? If the fielder has to move in to the path of the runner in order to position his body properly to make a catch of a throw then that seems ok to me. If the throw is super late then I definitely can see an obstruction call. But if the throw arrives early enough (as it did here) there shouldn't be an obstruction call in my opinion. The throw required the runner to move where he did so that he could properly catch it, the ball arrived early enough so that the fielder had the ball before any possible obstruction occurred. Also - I have watched this over and over and I fail to see how the runner was obstructed at all. Watch the runner and his slide. Absolutely nothing about what he did shows that he was obstructed in any way from trying to get to the base. I understand the new point of emphasis with the obstruction rule this year but to me this play clearly doesn't satisfy it.
@@theburnetts What I'm saying is what I said: without the ball, a fielder is not entitled to be in the runner's path to the base. It is only obstruction when the fielder (without the ball) impedes the progress of a runner. If you rewatch the video, you can see that Bohm is forced to move to his left due to Rojas moving into his path. That is before the ball is on its way to Rojas. There's the obstruction.
On the one hand, this call is BS. On the other, I direct your attention to the way they called this on Opening Day, Mets vs Brewers, which is perfectly in line with this call.
Wrong. This call is not BS. It's perfectly within the rules. Or as Lindsay likes to say ... technically correct. The best kind of correct! And I'm saying this as a Dodgers fan lol 🤣
I have to disagree. There was no imposition and when contact occurred the fielder was in possession of the ball, thus allowed to be there. That's a good "baseball' play!
I generally agree with your assessment. however, you can be called for obstruction for being in the runner's base path even if there's no contact. bear with me, this actually makes sense. it happens at home plate a lot. if the receiver is in "blocking" the runner's path to the base, even without contact, then he is going to alter the runner's actions in getting to the bag. it's more pronounced/obvious when it's a catch kneeling in front of the plate before he catches the ball, but it's the same theory. you don't have to wait until there's contact to make the call correctly. the only issue, as I see it, is whether he was actually blocking the runner's path to the base. I don't think he was, except to the extent that he needed to field the ball. but I think that's the point of the play that really matters, not the eventual slide into the leg (clearly kept there to block the bag) after he caught the ball. /2cents
I'm a Phillies fan, and "we" really needed that W last night. That said, I dont think it was the correct call. The fielder can't suspend himself in mid-air to field the throw. And Bohm still could've slid through him, or to the home plate side of the bag.
It seems like this is what MLB wants. As far as I know, none of the MLB executives have released a statement saying that this was not how they wanted the rule to be interpreted.
Sometimes, MLB can't get out of their own way.....There is nothing worse than watching a good old baseball game, seeing what appears to be a great play, only to see the ump applying some new fangled rule that MLB wants umps to focus on....I mean, the Buster Posey rule is the worst example by far, but this one is an example where once again, an unnecessary call is being made on what was ultimately a good, skilled defensive play??
Vehemently disagree with the rules interpretation here. He did need to occupy that space, he did not obstruct until after he was making a play on the ball, the runner had a lane to the bag until the ball was in Rojas glove.
Except Rojas did not need to occupy the space in front of the bag while awaiting the throw. He could have been in front or behind the established basepath. Like how catchers set up in fair territory now to give the runner foul territory until they receive the ball.
@@Volante31921 it was a bunt, he was rotating from short. He was playing back. There is no universe where he can field that in front of the runner and he was still rotating when receiving the throw. He’s going to a spot, he wasn’t camped. This is asinine and anyone who has ever played infield at any level past little league will tell you that you’re crazy.
@@Maverick31 If the only play he can make is to go into Bohm's basepath without the ball, then there's no play. You cannot, as a fielder, camp in the established basepath of a runner without the ball. And Rojas is clearly doing so at 2:35.
@@Volante31921 he wasn’t camped. He was still in motion toward the bag when the ball was thrown, which you can see at the beginning of the video. He was in the act of fielding (throw was in the air) once he was directionally between Bohm and the bag. Act of fielding means there is no obstruction and he has every right to make that play.
@@Volante31921 So a fielder has to run sideways from short to 3rd while tracking a thrown ball and also somehow make sure he's 6 inches in front of or behind the baseline? Asking a lot there
One of the worst umpires in the game makes a call, that may be, technically correct, but shows horrible judgement? Colour me shocked? Also loved the 4 Questions Reference XD.
@@jametz66That's code from a non-umpire that means "Ok, I don't actually know the rules or how to officiate this play, but I don't like the outcome and I am impotent to change what happened."
My issue is that it doesnt get called 99% of the time and if doesnt get called you cant review it either. Also what if Bahm is 3 feet further back and doesnt make any contact is it not called... would it still not be obstruction?
I usually agree with your analysis, but strong disagree. Rojas already had the ball when contact was made he went for the tag. Kiké was already in the act of throwing when Rojas took his position in front of the bag while still moving. Rojas never did plant his foot and actively kept his legs spread to allow space for the runner. This is why these types of plays need to be reviewable and the rules not obtuse for multiple interpretations to be made.
But rojas, without the ball, positioned his body directly between the runner and his path to the base. He could have stayed outside the runners path, caught the ball, and made the tag. That he ran to the exact spot to block the runner is why he was called for obstruction.
@@johncaccamo not what Wendle pointed to, he pointed to feet touching while the tag was being applied. Second, a position player can field a ball as long as contact with the runner is not made and the position player has a play within the space. Example, a second base player charges to field a weak youhit to get the out at first. Just because there is a runner at first running to second, that does not mean the second base player has to sit back and let them pass before crossing the runner's path. As long as no contact is made it is a legal play. Not once did Rojas slow or impede the runner until he has the ball to apply the tag.
This reminds me of the old “catch rule” in NFL. Everyone hates the rule, but we shouldnt get mad at the Umps for correctly enforcing a rule we dont like. I do say that the Ump got the call correct and then screwed everything up afterwards.
Hunter Wendelstedt is one of the umpires that MLB needs to drive out of the league. He can’t call balls and strikes and consistently goes out of the way to make the games he officiates about himself. He only has this job because of his dad. This “technically correct” shit needs to stop. We all know what the obstruction rule is trying to prevent and this isn’t it.
@@jeremygoldenberg9617 umpires can ignore rules that are against fair play. The obvious one is that players can’t talk to each other. Thats been ignored for 100 years.
@@DJTexan Trying to compare the fraternization rule with a very specific rule about how on the field plays are officiated is just absurd. Especially when that rule was specifically emphasized by the league this season. I mean. Cmon now.
I always watch your video but did not see this one yet and watched jomboy and watch the lip read and then he shouted you out and said you had a video out so I came over
@@EJayMD-11 I’m just confused on it. The definition is correct, and Rojas was correct in what he did. Does only half of the rule need to apply for it to be interference? If so why is the second half of the rule even there if he has possession? Why doesn’t every runner just aim for the fielders legs if having a lane doesn’t apply and neither does intent to get an obstruction call? It seems vague.
@@EJayMD-11 I mean she's been fucking up on some of her last videos in saying certain calls like this were "correct" when objectively they aren't. But sweep more.
@@Disruptuer he definitely planted the foot there to block the base. what confuses me his why that's an issue since he already had the ball at that point.
Three things can be true at once: 1. The call was, by the book, correct. 2. The call was completely unnecessary and counter to all that is good about baseball. 3. If you are going to eject someone for requesting an explanation on such a call, you should retire and the school that uses your name should be rebranded.
@@EJayMD-11 Absolutely not. A huge part of being an umpire is having the feel and people skills to manage the game. Being a socially incompetent asshole who gets the call right still makes you a bad umpire.
@@whodoyoudancefor absolutely not, the notion that you're supposed to let grown men yell in your face is absolutely nonsense. If number one is correct number 2 is nonsense, you're supposed to follow the rule book, and MLB and the rule book says the call is necessary. The rule book also says you can't argue and ignore warning, and the result is an ejection.
@@EJayMD-11 A huge part of being a good umpire is having a feel when and where to exercise the great deal of discretion MLB grants in the making of judgement calls. I don't have an issue with this call, but I do think a better umpire would have taken advantage of the opportunity not to make it. If there's a judgement call and one side will lead to controversy and the other will not then make the less controversial judgement. Throwing up the stop sign to Roberts was completely indefensible and should get Hunter ripped a new one. The aggression to Rojas was already over the top, but Roberts is unquestionably entitled to an explanation there.
Everyone seems to ask what the fielder should have done. It's fairly simple, don't put your foot in the path of the runner or get there 1/4 second quicker. This isn't getting called if their feet fail to touch.
Even if you argue he did block the runner, and it’s not obvious that he did, it seems hard to conclude he didn’t need to occupy that space to field the throw. Bad call.
I think MLB is going to support the call. I haven't seen anything from the MLB Office that says that this was not the interpretation they were looking for. Maybe the rule can be reviewed in the off season, but it terms of grading it fits what the rulebook says.
@@Mosk915 The issue isn't him being in the spot he was when receiving the throw. You're right that it's fine. The issue is his route to the bag. If he comes around from the back instead of through the "base path" then it's fine. He isn't entitled to take the most direct route, the runner is.
Looks to me as if the runner intentionally aimed his foot to hit Rojas. The runner was angle on the inside of his path. To the home plate side. Then slid back into Rojas on the outfield side of the bag. Don't know if that makes a difference.
@@jchazchastain4345 well rojas was walking forward. remember we're watching this in slow motion. the whole point of the obstruction call is that even before the fielding of the ball he's between the runner and the bag.
Isn't the obstruction (if it is there) much earlier than most of the analysis? The runner has taken a rather outfield side route and he has to dink to his left at 2:35. Now whether he is close enough to be impeded is then the question, it cannot be the rule that you impede by at any time (once the runner is past the preceding base) being in the runner's way- that would mean you could not cross the baseline to position yourself legally. [It's funny that the obstruction rule uses "impede" as a key part of its definition, considering the dictionary definition of impede usually ends up being "obstructs someone/thing."] fwiw disagree with the analysis starting at 2:09. If the foot on foot contact "proved" the answer to Q1 (per narration), you need to look at when the foot moved the position of *the contact* and MR's foot moved significantly after the fielding act started (narrator kind of changed what she says in Q2 fwiw, which makes me query the answer to Q1). At 2:20 you can see 2 things, the fielder at least 8 inches behind the line of runner to base [but this is post dink, above], AND you see the runner now veering away from the base path towards the fielder- he is leaning by quite a few degrees towards the outfield, perhaps in order to get into his slide. Then at 2:21 MR is bending down, feet still not in the way and runner in the start of the slide, which clearly is the natural act, and will take him, unimpeded, under MR. The line that is drawn at 2:26 is very casual and, to my eye, bends towards the fielder's toe. As noted- the runner is leaning towards MR at that point, but only in order to get into his slide, which MR is clearly not in the way of.
Love the 4 questions theme. One note (Hebrew teacher here): in question 1 it should be בריצת, not בהפעלת. Your translation tool interpreted "running" in the sense of "operating" and yielded the wrong translation.
Spot on coverage by close call however I think we are all missing the real point here. How dumb was it to have Marsh sac bunt in this situation? And then Roberts apparently compounds the stupidity as he calls a play to have Hernandez try to throw to third for the lead runner? Instead of getting the sure out at first? Dumb squared. Baseball seems to have a never-ending supply of fools.
"Foot on foot contact" does not mean there is obstruction. You can see clearly that there was a clear path to the base and the runner went out of his way to contact Rojas' foot by sliding away from the base, lmao.
Question 1: No, the baserunner's foot came away from the line to the base to contact the fielder. Question 2: No. The behind view clearly shows the runner had a path open to the base. Question 3: IN THE FIELDER'S GLOVE BECAUSE THE IMPEDING DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL AFTER HE HAD THE BALL.
Obstruction occurred when the fielder came forward into the path of the runner *before* he had the ball though. Everyone is focussing on the foot contact in the slide, but that's irrelevant - at that point he can absolutely block the path. Until he actually has the ball, however, he cannot.
Saying this is "technically correct" is like saying a bad strike call on a pitch outside the zone is "technically correct" because the umpire thought it was in the zone
Issue with the first question “Did the fielder actually impede the runner in running the bases?” Two thoughts, let me know where I am wrong: 1. The camera angle from behind the umpire shows fielder’s left foot (the foot that contacted the runner) was obstructing the outfield corner of the bag and the runner still had a lane to slide into, right in the center of the bag. When seen from this angle it looks like the runner puts his foot toward fielder’s foot during slide rather than toward the center of the bag which was open. 2. At the time the contact occurred, fielder had full possession of the ball therefore allowing fielder to block access to the bag, even though the fielder did not block it, but kept moving through in the direction he was running before/during/after the contact. Just observations and thoughts. How rules are written, the vernacular, is super interesting. Way to go Joe Davis on getting the wording correct.
I'm a bit confused on the interpretation of this call. He had to catch the ball where he caught it, did he not? the ball was thrown to an empty bag. It's planting the foot in the middle of the slide path AFTER he caught it that amounts to obstruction(?). but that's only after he had possession of the ball(?).
By rule this was not obstruction because MiggyRo started to field the ball when the potential obstruction began, and had the ball when the contact occurred. You mention the 3rd, "controversial" question of was it necessary? Well, in your opinion, was it? Major cop out to ignore it and just go with the "technically correct" meme. Shame.
I’m a Phillies fan and the call was bad cause what was Rojas supposed to do on the throw? I feel like they should at least have obstruction in plays you can challenge especially with the new obstruction rules in effect this season.
Roberts was saying to Wendelstedt, “I’m just defending my player,” because of the shouting going on. Don’t know why he followed Wendelstedt out into the grass instead of stopping next to Rojas
Wendelstedt is a horrible umpire. Terrible call and horrible game management. He only made that call so he could put on a show. MLB has to continue to get rid of these clowns.
3rd baseman's foot essentially blocked or impeded the runner's foot from touching the bag. Hence, obstruction, regardless of the baseball play made in the act of tagging. Designed to prevent injury. Call was correct.
@@hawaiianstarman You are allowed to block when you have the ball. What MLB is calling "obstruction" now occurred several feet before - and is typical of the BS rules MLB is so fond of now. Just like the plays at home last year, the fielder has to magic himself out of the way - but still somehow be in a position to make a play.
@@brianmullaney6237 He planted his foot as he was in the act of receiving the ball. It's not like he was standing there waiting. Rojas should have been there earlier and in a position to receive the ball where his foot wasn't in the basepath for the runner to hit. If you carry your logic to steals or plays at home then the defense gets to block and wait for the ball on a lot more plays. If he caught the ball a step before he planted that foot it's a different story imo.
@@stephenbeck7222 but, without the ball, rojas moved his body into a blocking position long before he “fielded” the throw when he didnt “need to” in order to field the throw.
I'm not a fan of Wendelstedt's reaction here. To me this is one of those plays that the umpire needs to be ready to explain why the call was made because it's not that common of a play. Wendelstedt seemed like he was too proud to take any questioning and it's hard to blame Dave Roberts for going out there on the defensive seeing how Wendelstedt was talking to Rojas. I also found it interesting that crew chief Marvin Hudson wasn't anywhere nearby to try and diffuse the situation. Almost seemed like he was letting him handle the mess he ultimately created. I really hope next year Wendelstedt is on a crew with a chief like Iassogna or Miller who can help him mellow out and handle situations better than he has
I fail to see any obstruction on this play. I get the blocking while fielding POE, but he had the ball and time for part of a tag before the contact occured. Unless I missed something, it doesn't look like he impeded the runner while trying to cover the base either. This is too tickt tacky.
I couldn't help notice how you drew a curved base path, which conveniently crossed into the edge of Rojas' foot in order to make it appear as though Rojas was obstructing the base.
Is this like the plate blocking rule where they don't care about how close the runner is? Because I'm a Phillies fan and the contact didn't occur until he had the ball. I know contact isn't necessary for obstruction but Bohm didn't do anything differently because he was there, he really wasn't impeded from his normal route or speed until the contact.
This is pretty much exactly like the plate-blocking rule except that there's no foul line to demarcate where the fielder can set up, so it's much less consistent.
I still say that this was not technically correct. That defensive player gave a clear path to the base. If I am the offensive player, I just need to initiate contact with a defender anywhere and it's obstruction? Get real!
I don't see it on this one. I get the rule but watching the play I do not see the fielder's movement make the runner stop, slow down or deviate his chosen pathway to the base in any way. As for the fleet touching the fielder had the ball. This one I have to disagree on.
When you say a [judgment] call like this is technically correct, would a non-call also be technically correct? I believe you said somewhere else that the obstruction was adjudged prior to Rojas fielding the ball. Would it have been just as technically correct to judge that Rojas did not obstruct there, was in the act of fielding the ball by the time any potential obstruction occurred, so did not commit obstruction?
I was at this game and I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with the call. The runner had access to the bag and chose to slide into the fielder's leg. The fielder was making a play on the ball and then applied the tag. Runner is out all day.
Hunter Wendelstedt is a diva who has to make every game about HIM. Roberts is allowed to ask for an explanation, and he also felt that he had to protect his player who was also arguing the call. Roberts did everything right and got an ejection for his efforts. I also don't agree with the obstruction call as there is no way you get a tag down without that exact type of sequence. As a Giants fan, the Dodgers got a super bad deal there. And I H.A.T.E. "technically correct"
"ACT OF FIELDING" means (player HAD to be in that spot to catch the ball) . . 1) This Fielder could have been in front or behind the basepath and still caught the ball. . . 2) Runner made contact with Fielder who was in an illegal position without the ball. . . . . Another coach getting tossed over a correct call! This season just gets better and better
Obstruction is a judgement call - while I didn't agree with the call of obstruction (I think there was no obstruction until Rojas has possession of the ball when he is absolutely allowed to be anywhere he wants at that point) if U3 feels there was, he made the correct type of obstruction call and enforced it correctly. Now, the actions of U3 after the call were just bad IMO - Can and should Rojas be able to get clarification on the call without being yelled at? Absolutely. Can the manager come out and get an explanation? Absolutely - U3 should not have given the immediate stop sign on the manager coming out. If you're going to make this call on the field, then you stand your ground and explain to the player/manager why you made the call, what you saw, THEN you move on - you calmly answer the questions they ask, then move on. If after that explanation, the manager or player doesn't want to move on, then you can give the warning/eject at that point. "In my judgement, the SS impeded the runner prior to possessing the ball" is all you have to say - then we move on.
Sorry but no, the foot on foot contact is not a confirmation of Rojas impeding Bohm's run, that contact is a result of Bohm's slide with his front foot moving towards Rojas left foot who, btw, was pulling it "lateraly backwards". If a calm thorough review of the play is going to set it as technically correct, then the rule itself needs to be changed. What was Rojas supposed to do? run aruound third? Don't move towards the base until he had the ball? Just sit and look how they take the base? I get they're trying to protect the players but this is absurd, categorizing any minimal contact as impeding someone from running is not only soft but absurd
I disagree with almost every part of this analysis. But i guess the thing I'm most confused by is that Rojas had possession of the ball when the contact took place so it can't be obstruction. Why are we glossing over that?
Because obstruction doesn't just occur at the point of contact. Think of it as when you're driving a car and have the right of way. If someone pulls out in front of you and makes you have to swerve or tap your brakes then that's obstruction, even if there never is any contact. The runner has the right to be unimpeded, and a fielder receiving the throw has the responsibility to do nothing whatsoever to impede the runner until the moment they get the ball. The fielder doesn't have the right to take the most direct route to the bag to receive the throw.
@whodoyoudancefor I appreciate that answer, thank you. I do not agree that the runner was impeded in any way BEFORE Rojas had the ball. And AFTER possessing the ball there can't be obstruction so that is really the issue: Was Rojas impeding the runner before possession? And again I think it's clear there was zero.
@@mr.larocca5150 I think the call was technically correct. To go back to the driving analogy, if you pull out in front of someone and make them have to pause, alter, or consider altering their course or speed it's obstruction. In order to be 100% okay you have to have 0% impact because anything whatsoever gets interpreted in favour of the runner. I don't know if you watch hockey at all, but it's similar to goaltender inference. If you willingly skate into the blue paint the standard for what qualifies as interference is much lower than if you're pushed in there by an opposing player. Similarly here, if you choose to take that route and be in that spot you must be absolutely flawless.
Lindsay is wrong here. You tell me how he’s supposed to field the throw there other than the way he did. It’s a poor call. And hunter as usual handled this like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum and like a low brow , classless guy who wants to be anywhere but on the field umpiring an MLB game.
Your analysis on the very first point you raise ignores the fact that Rojas fielded the ball AND had it in his glove BEFORE any contact was made with the runner.
nah. you can be called for blocking the plate before you have the ball. I've seen this at home plenty of times. you cannot stand in the baseline waiting for the ball. the issue I don't understand is that the path he took to the bag was natural to catch the ball. I definitely see him go out of his way to block the runner's path to the base, but that's only after he caught the ball. in order for this to be obstruction (if I understand correctly) he has to be called for obstructing the runners path to the base BEFORE catching the ball. so was he obstructing the runner long before...as in before he even slid? I think that's the only valid question here. the foot planted was definitely blocking, but he also definitely had the ball before he did that.
100% the imcorrect call. You call this obstruction, please explain where you would like the defensive player to go? Should he be in left field and activate his go go gadget arm to try to make the tag. If you look at the slide, the guys foot actually slide to the right and into the defensive players foot, which was outside the base when he caught the ball. Terrible call
This is typical Hunter Wendelstedt. Like Cowboy Joe, he wants to be the show but doesn't care about his own performance - because his bosses don't care. There will be zero accountability for this with MLB and the union, and Hunter will think he can do anything he wants here, even if it's a piss-poor job. He's a complete clown, like Cuzzi, Estabrook, and Bucknor.
I wouldn't have called it. IF the fielder is blocking the basepath before he has the ball it's by half an inch. The contact occurs on a step he takes after possessing the ball. If you look frame by frame around 1:42 it sure doesn't look like there's a problem before the ball is caught. The runner wasn't wide of the baseline to need that angle to get to the plate and didn't have to adjust their path. I don't see enough to make a call of obstruction here at all. on another topic I wish youtube would let you mark a specific frame instead of just a timestamp. Would make this a lot easier.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
Jomboy sent us here!
I loved that he did. Close call sports has been around far longer and occupies the more niche space of rule interpretation and umpire performance. Jomboy arrived later and has blown up in popularity, rightfully so because he brought light into the world of arguments and made the overall breakdown exciting and fun.
Jomboy is sort of like the Reddit/tiktok version of breakdowns. Fun and entertaining with some potential to learn.
Close call is like the LinkedIn version of breakdowns. Highly technical/educational and not necessarily focused on fun and entertainment.
Jomboy gave you a shout out in his video on this topic! Glad to see your channel getting more notice!
Was going to say this...
I was wondering when this video would be out to hear what Lins thought about it....
This channel is 1000% better and faster to post in almost every instance than jomboy
I don’t like the way Hunter dealt with Dave Roberts. Roberts was allowed to get an explanation you can’t just back away from it immediately if it’s a weird call, at least explain part of it and then walk away if he doesn’t like. This was very unprofessional I hate to say
At some point if the manager doesn't get off the field he has to go. I really don't think Hunter Wendelstedt had a choice here. I think this was handled a lot better than the situation in April.
I watched it in real time. I thought the ump gave the leniency to the player arguing and once the manager showed up he was out of patience. I was a little bit surprised Rojas wasn't tossed first. Wish we would have been given the real time replay for the whole event in this video.
The problem is we don’t know what Dave said…on the surface the optics do not look good. We have an unusual, irregular call that involves interpretation of a rule. This is not all about judgement. So, yes…a manager should be able to get some context on a weird play like this. The fact that Hunter has both his hands up before they even start a discussion is not the best look. And I am also open to the possibility that Dave may have said some magic words that lead to the ejection. We just don’t know.
@@vincentwendt720 I do agree but maybe just explain it what miggy Rojas said and if he doesn’t want the explanation, then yes absolutely toss him. But Hunter did do a better job than what happened in April for sure. This situation is just quick for me
@@qu54re65 It seemed to me like Wendelstedt gave Roberts a fair opportunity to voice his opinion. At some point the game has to resume. I think from a game management prospective, this is a great improvement. I like how this was handled.
Even as an umpire, I have to agree that this rule and its interpretation need to change. That was a good play at 3rd.
the first question is "Why is this night different from all other nights?"
I was wondering why she had those Hebrew translations.
Another question is why a game needs to be dependent upon umpire’s interpretation of the rule ?
It’s funny: Hunter Wendlstedt literally runs a umpire academy that feeds to the minor leagues. He does not practice what he teaches. Good call, but horrible game management. He’s also horrible at calling a game behind the plate.
Love the four questions in Hebrew! Very nice. Good analysis.
Been watching both jomboy and Lindsay for quite awhile now. Get the lip reading then the actual text book rule. Hope you get 100k sub overnight.
Here because of Jomboy and thankful for the clarification of this rule!
I guess I don't understand this one. The fielder had the ball and was in the act of placing the tag when the contact occurred. So, how is that obstruction?
I don't know if the way the rule is written but he's obstructing Bohm (He's between Bohm and the base) before he has the ball.. I'm probably incorrect on that.
Because the obstructing act was ruled to have started prior to that point. Call quality notwithstanding that’s how the technical aspect of the play is officiated.
@@CloseCallSports ok, thanks! So, if the runner's foot had slid between the fielder's legs and no contact occurred, would that still be obstruction? I guess what I'm getting at is this - how can the fielder not obstruct if in the base path with the ball in hand? And isn't it in the runner's best interest to initiate contact as that makes the obstruction call easy? Seems like that's a bad precedent.
@@andrewszaflarski5379 Yes, fielder positioning is treated like a cartesian plane, as opposed to the actual 3D properties of straddling - like the space between the fielder's leg is an extension of the fielder. In other words, requiring a runner to slide through a straddle is still considered a block. The way the rule is written makes this call *technically* correct though I disagree with the broadcaster that it's within the spirit of the rule.
@@andrewszaflarski5379if the fielder had been a half step back he would not have entered the base path before he had the ball and it would not have been obstruction. That being said, I hope this call is reviewed and the rules/instructions tweaked because I don't think most people would like this to be a correct call.
The more your Futurama love leaks out, the more I like this channel. And I already liked it a whole lot.
Umpiring is tough. De-escalation shouldn't be. But Hunter's awful at that.
For the most part I agree. Although, when a manager won't get off the field I don't know what other choice he has. I think this was handled a lot better than the situation in April.
@@vincentwendt720There's nothing wrong with the call. There's nothing wrong with the ejection.
Everything else from Hunter is godawful here.
No, the ejection is bad. It's like you didn't even finish watching the video. The call may not be challenged, so the manager is allowed to get an explanation from the umpire. Hunter Wendelstedt couldn't even be bothered to say the word "obstruction" before he tossed Roberts.
@@neohippie7319 Having his hands up stopping Roberts was atrocious and inexcusable, yes. But without watching the whole thing start to finish - not an edited version - it's impossible to know how quick a toss that was. His attitude was horrible regardless though.
@@whodoyoudancefor Watch Jomboy's breakdown and lip reading. It's an inexcusably quick toss.
Welp, found my new favorite channel and creator. Neat.
These types of calls definitely need to be reviewable. It's possible the ump had a bad angle
What elements of the play can be reviewed to evaluate the umpire's judgment whether or not the runner was impeded by a fielder?
@@teebob21 the same way they review plays at home. It was fairly easy for us to review on TH-cam
The kind of obstruction the rules were designed to stop was where the fielder literally was blocking the runner from touching the base, not simple touching.
@@tervalas says who? I’d love an excerpt.
Also, the 3rd baseman impeded Bohm’s front-most part of the slide, the only part needed to be blocked to completely prevent him from touching 3rd.
The only question the Ump needed to answer to make that call was, “did Rojas 100% need to step in front of his slide to make the play?” Which I don’t really know.
It was a weird call, but not a bad call per se.
@@salommy Rojas had the ball already in his glove. This allows him to take a position to make an out.
As Jomboy points out, Wendlstadt wasn't even paying attention to when the ball got there, only looking at the feet.
The dude was out in my opinion. Why replay is needed for such calls.
@@brianjones1616 2:36 he's in the runners path and the ball is still in the air
@@crimson2856 Which is a position he is allowed to be in to field the throw.
@@garytravis9347only if he absolutely has to be to field the throw, he could be 2 feet further back and still catch it
Hunter Wendelburger is soft. Just explain the call without going bugeyed screaming at Rojas and don’t turn your back to a manager like that when they’re not even arguing.
Hope he joins Angel in retirement soon.
So you're going to ignore Rojas yelling?
Hunter was out of line with his actions toward SS. He needs anger mgmt classes. He can not fill his father's shoes.
First, Im a Phils fan. 2nd, Im an umpire. 3rd, by the "book" maybe this is obstruction, but I always say, if he DIDNT call it, nobody wouldve said a word. But, my biggest problem is with MLB not allowing this to be reviewable. Im sure Hunter wouldve liked a 2nd look. Maybe it wouldnt change the call, but that aspect(replay) at least feels better when it happens, IMO
I definitely see both sides of this call. While technically correct (the best kind of correct) by the letter of the rule, I do agree with the mindset this might not be the spirit of the rule.
Watching this slowed down, it really looks like Rojas fielded the ball before he got into the runner's path. I don't like this one being called obstruction.
It’s a dumb one where it’s probably correct, however you could easily find this type of contact if not worse in every single game played this season if you’re really looking for it.
2:36 he's in the runner's path without the ball
@@crimson2856 2:21 no he's not.
@@PapaVanTwee5 Alec bohm has to move to avoid the fielder before the fielder has the ball.
Hunter was horrible on ALL counts in this situation. There is no defense to this call, even PHILLIES fans have been calling this a hors**hit call.
I'll admit, Hunter has done things that I disagreed with, but this is the rule. He didn't throw out Roberts right away. He let him argue a little bit, then warned him to stop. When Roberts didn't get off the field he got tossed. This is how MLB wants obstruction to be enforced. I saw this called several times in spring training under very similar circumstances. The fact that MLB executives have not refuted this call tells me that this is how they want the rule to be enforced.
Thanks, cleared some things up for me on why Bohm was called safe.
I watched this video and listened to Lindsay’s explanation and I still don’t see the obstruction. I still don’t understand why this was called obstruction. The fielder was not obstructing the runner until after he had the ball. Makes no sense at all.
The fielder entered the runner's path to the bag before the fielder had the ball. Without the ball, he's not entitled to be there. Not one foot, not one knee, not his entire body between the runner and the bag. That's the obstruction.
@@voxelation so you are saying that a fielder is NEVER allowed to be anywhere between a runner and the base without the ball? EVER? Like if a fielder steps 1 inch in to the path while the runner is 45 feet away from the base then that is obstruction? I don’t think that is the rule. A fielder can be in the runners path without the ball. The question is did the fielder actually hinder or obstruct the runner? And the fielder is allowed to be in the path of the runner without the ball if they are in the process of fielding a batted or thrown ball and the umpire judges that they had to be there and could not have been anywhere else.
@@theburnettsthe issue here is that the fielder didnt “need” to position his body in the basepath of the runner in order to catch the ball and make a tag attempt. Watch the video around 1:43 ish. Rojas committed obstruction when he entered the runners basepath. He planted his body between the runner and the base in order to make the attempt to catch the ball. That is the obstruction.
@@johncaccamo I get what you are saying but to me that interpretation is crazy. He had to be where he was to catch the ball! Are the rules now requiring a fielder to go out of his way to be in a bad position to catch a throw simply because he wants to avoid obstruction? If the fielder has to move in to the path of the runner in order to position his body properly to make a catch of a throw then that seems ok to me. If the throw is super late then I definitely can see an obstruction call. But if the throw arrives early enough (as it did here) there shouldn't be an obstruction call in my opinion. The throw required the runner to move where he did so that he could properly catch it, the ball arrived early enough so that the fielder had the ball before any possible obstruction occurred. Also - I have watched this over and over and I fail to see how the runner was obstructed at all. Watch the runner and his slide. Absolutely nothing about what he did shows that he was obstructed in any way from trying to get to the base. I understand the new point of emphasis with the obstruction rule this year but to me this play clearly doesn't satisfy it.
@@theburnetts What I'm saying is what I said: without the ball, a fielder is not entitled to be in the runner's path to the base. It is only obstruction when the fielder (without the ball) impedes the progress of a runner. If you rewatch the video, you can see that Bohm is forced to move to his left due to Rojas moving into his path. That is before the ball is on its way to Rojas. There's the obstruction.
On the one hand, this call is BS.
On the other, I direct your attention to the way they called this on Opening Day, Mets vs Brewers, which is perfectly in line with this call.
Wrong. This call is not BS. It's perfectly within the rules. Or as Lindsay likes to say ... technically correct. The best kind of correct! And I'm saying this as a Dodgers fan lol 🤣
Big shout out to you guys on the Breakdown for this.
I have to disagree. There was no imposition and when contact occurred the fielder was in possession of the ball, thus allowed to be there. That's a good "baseball' play!
Did you watch the video?
@@arcticredpanda4598he did he's right
I generally agree with your assessment. however, you can be called for obstruction for being in the runner's base path even if there's no contact. bear with me, this actually makes sense. it happens at home plate a lot. if the receiver is in "blocking" the runner's path to the base, even without contact, then he is going to alter the runner's actions in getting to the bag. it's more pronounced/obvious when it's a catch kneeling in front of the plate before he catches the ball, but it's the same theory. you don't have to wait until there's contact to make the call correctly. the only issue, as I see it, is whether he was actually blocking the runner's path to the base. I don't think he was, except to the extent that he needed to field the ball. but I think that's the point of the play that really matters, not the eventual slide into the leg (clearly kept there to block the bag) after he caught the ball. /2cents
Jomboy sent me here and I immediately subscribed! What an awesome breakdown!
Thank you for this excellent explanation. ⚾️🙏
I'm a Phillies fan, and "we" really needed that W last night. That said, I dont think it was the correct call. The fielder can't suspend himself in mid-air to field the throw. And Bohm still could've slid through him, or to the home plate side of the bag.
It seems like this is what MLB wants. As far as I know, none of the MLB executives have released a statement saying that this was not how they wanted the rule to be interpreted.
Sometimes, MLB can't get out of their own way.....There is nothing worse than watching a good old baseball game, seeing what appears to be a great play, only to see the ump applying some new fangled rule that MLB wants umps to focus on....I mean, the Buster Posey rule is the worst example by far, but this one is an example where once again, an unnecessary call is being made on what was ultimately a good, skilled defensive play??
Vehemently disagree with the rules interpretation here. He did need to occupy that space, he did not obstruct until after he was making a play on the ball, the runner had a lane to the bag until the ball was in Rojas glove.
Except Rojas did not need to occupy the space in front of the bag while awaiting the throw. He could have been in front or behind the established basepath. Like how catchers set up in fair territory now to give the runner foul territory until they receive the ball.
@@Volante31921 it was a bunt, he was rotating from short. He was playing back. There is no universe where he can field that in front of the runner and he was still rotating when receiving the throw. He’s going to a spot, he wasn’t camped. This is asinine and anyone who has ever played infield at any level past little league will tell you that you’re crazy.
@@Maverick31 If the only play he can make is to go into Bohm's basepath without the ball, then there's no play. You cannot, as a fielder, camp in the established basepath of a runner without the ball. And Rojas is clearly doing so at 2:35.
@@Volante31921 he wasn’t camped. He was still in motion toward the bag when the ball was thrown, which you can see at the beginning of the video. He was in the act of fielding (throw was in the air) once he was directionally between Bohm and the bag. Act of fielding means there is no obstruction and he has every right to make that play.
@@Volante31921 So a fielder has to run sideways from short to 3rd while tracking a thrown ball and also somehow make sure he's 6 inches in front of or behind the baseline? Asking a lot there
One of the worst umpires in the game makes a call, that may be, technically correct, but shows horrible judgement? Colour me shocked? Also loved the 4 Questions Reference XD.
.....technically correct, but shows horrible judgement.... OK! Sure!🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jametz66That's code from a non-umpire that means "Ok, I don't actually know the rules or how to officiate this play, but I don't like the outcome and I am impotent to change what happened."
Oh hi. Didn't know you were a Baseball fan Jrose.
My issue is that it doesnt get called 99% of the time and if doesnt get called you cant review it either. Also what if Bahm is 3 feet further back and doesnt make any contact is it not called... would it still not be obstruction?
I usually agree with your analysis, but strong disagree.
Rojas already had the ball when contact was made he went for the tag. Kiké was already in the act of throwing when Rojas took his position in front of the bag while still moving. Rojas never did plant his foot and actively kept his legs spread to allow space for the runner.
This is why these types of plays need to be reviewable and the rules not obtuse for multiple interpretations to be made.
But rojas, without the ball, positioned his body directly between the runner and his path to the base. He could have stayed outside the runners path, caught the ball, and made the tag. That he ran to the exact spot to block the runner is why he was called for obstruction.
@@johncaccamo not what Wendle pointed to, he pointed to feet touching while the tag was being applied.
Second, a position player can field a ball as long as contact with the runner is not made and the position player has a play within the space. Example, a second base player charges to field a weak youhit to get the out at first. Just because there is a runner at first running to second, that does not mean the second base player has to sit back and let them pass before crossing the runner's path. As long as no contact is made it is a legal play. Not once did Rojas slow or impede the runner until he has the ball to apply the tag.
@@brianjones1616 A fielder has absolute right of way to field a *batted* ball - this is not that, it is a thrown ball. Totally different scenario.
This reminds me of the old “catch rule” in NFL. Everyone hates the rule, but we shouldnt get mad at the Umps for correctly enforcing a rule we dont like. I do say that the Ump got the call correct and then screwed everything up afterwards.
Yep
nope. no way. no
Came from Jomboy! Great video and, great channel. Thanks for the clarification, subscribed.
Love the Hebrew 4 questions!!!!
Hunter Wendelstedt is one of the umpires that MLB needs to drive out of the league. He can’t call balls and strikes and consistently goes out of the way to make the games he officiates about himself. He only has this job because of his dad. This “technically correct” shit needs to stop. We all know what the obstruction rule is trying to prevent and this isn’t it.
For a sporting official technically correct is literally the job. If the rule is broken that's on the league to fix, not umpires to just ignore rules.
@@jeremygoldenberg9617 umpires can ignore rules that are against fair play. The obvious one is that players can’t talk to each other. Thats been ignored for 100 years.
@@DJTexan Trying to compare the fraternization rule with a very specific rule about how on the field plays are officiated is just absurd. Especially when that rule was specifically emphasized by the league this season. I mean. Cmon now.
I always watch your video but did not see this one yet and watched jomboy and watch the lip read and then he shouted you out and said you had a video out so I came over
So by definition this wasn’t obstruction? Rojas was both in the act of fielding and had possession of the ball. Am i correct in that?
@drewsummers7288 except your wrong lol. Yall watch these videos, get the correct explanation, and still think you know more.
@@EJayMD-11 I’m just confused on it. The definition is correct, and Rojas was correct in what he did. Does only half of the rule need to apply for it to be interference? If so why is the second half of the rule even there if he has possession? Why doesn’t every runner just aim for the fielders legs if having a lane doesn’t apply and neither does intent to get an obstruction call? It seems vague.
@@EJayMD-11 I mean she's been fucking up on some of her last videos in saying certain calls like this were "correct" when objectively they aren't. But sweep more.
@@Disruptuer he definitely planted the foot there to block the base. what confuses me his why that's an issue since he already had the ball at that point.
@@daneg Rojas was in front of the bag at 2:35 and did not have the ball.
Good call - and good explanation. Well done.
Three things can be true at once:
1. The call was, by the book, correct.
2. The call was completely unnecessary and counter to all that is good about baseball.
3. If you are going to eject someone for requesting an explanation on such a call, you should retire and the school that uses your name should be rebranded.
Number 1 is the only one that matters.
@@EJayMD-11 Absolutely not.
A huge part of being an umpire is having the feel and people skills to manage the game. Being a socially incompetent asshole who gets the call right still makes you a bad umpire.
@@whodoyoudancefor absolutely not, the notion that you're supposed to let grown men yell in your face is absolutely nonsense. If number one is correct number 2 is nonsense, you're supposed to follow the rule book, and MLB and the rule book says the call is necessary. The rule book also says you can't argue and ignore warning, and the result is an ejection.
@@EJayMD-11 A huge part of being a good umpire is having a feel when and where to exercise the great deal of discretion MLB grants in the making of judgement calls. I don't have an issue with this call, but I do think a better umpire would have taken advantage of the opportunity not to make it. If there's a judgement call and one side will lead to controversy and the other will not then make the less controversial judgement.
Throwing up the stop sign to Roberts was completely indefensible and should get Hunter ripped a new one. The aggression to Rojas was already over the top, but Roberts is unquestionably entitled to an explanation there.
@@whodoyoudancefor lol
Everyone seems to ask what the fielder should have done. It's fairly simple, don't put your foot in the path of the runner or get there 1/4 second quicker. This isn't getting called if their feet fail to touch.
Even if you argue he did block the runner, and it’s not obvious that he did, it seems hard to conclude he didn’t need to occupy that space to field the throw. Bad call.
I think MLB is going to support the call. I haven't seen anything from the MLB Office that says that this was not the interpretation they were looking for. Maybe the rule can be reviewed in the off season, but it terms of grading it fits what the rulebook says.
@@vincentwendt720 I agree, this is more "bad rule" than "bad call." Even if it was a call that could have potential gone either way by the rule.
@@Mosk915 The issue isn't him being in the spot he was when receiving the throw. You're right that it's fine.
The issue is his route to the bag. If he comes around from the back instead of through the "base path" then it's fine. He isn't entitled to take the most direct route, the runner is.
Looks to me as if the runner intentionally aimed his foot to hit Rojas. The runner was angle on the inside of his path. To the home plate side. Then slid back into Rojas on the outfield side of the bag. Don't know if that makes a difference.
@@jchazchastain4345 well rojas was walking forward. remember we're watching this in slow motion. the whole point of the obstruction call is that even before the fielding of the ball he's between the runner and the bag.
As a Jew, I appreciate the Passover references. Well done on that.
Isn't the obstruction (if it is there) much earlier than most of the analysis? The runner has taken a rather outfield side route and he has to dink to his left at 2:35. Now whether he is close enough to be impeded is then the question, it cannot be the rule that you impede by at any time (once the runner is past the preceding base) being in the runner's way- that would mean you could not cross the baseline to position yourself legally. [It's funny that the obstruction rule uses "impede" as a key part of its definition, considering the dictionary definition of impede usually ends up being "obstructs someone/thing."]
fwiw disagree with the analysis starting at 2:09. If the foot on foot contact "proved" the answer to Q1 (per narration), you need to look at when the foot moved the position of *the contact* and MR's foot moved significantly after the fielding act started (narrator kind of changed what she says in Q2 fwiw, which makes me query the answer to Q1). At 2:20 you can see 2 things, the fielder at least 8 inches behind the line of runner to base [but this is post dink, above], AND you see the runner now veering away from the base path towards the fielder- he is leaning by quite a few degrees towards the outfield, perhaps in order to get into his slide. Then at 2:21 MR is bending down, feet still not in the way and runner in the start of the slide, which clearly is the natural act, and will take him, unimpeded, under MR. The line that is drawn at 2:26 is very casual and, to my eye, bends towards the fielder's toe. As noted- the runner is leaning towards MR at that point, but only in order to get into his slide, which MR is clearly not in the way of.
omg the four questions lol
C'mon it was totally kimci
Yes!!! Thank you
Love the 4 questions theme. One note (Hebrew teacher here): in question 1 it should be בריצת, not בהפעלת. Your translation tool interpreted "running" in the sense of "operating" and yielded the wrong translation.
Spot on coverage by close call however I think we are all missing the real point here. How dumb was it to have Marsh sac bunt in this situation? And then Roberts apparently compounds the stupidity as he calls a play to have Hernandez try to throw to third for the lead runner? Instead of getting the sure out at first? Dumb squared.
Baseball seems to have a never-ending supply of fools.
SORTA OFFICIAL MLB UPSATE: Orel hershiser said on air that the league called Rojas to apologize for this incorrect call ( it was not interference).
I just love Lindsey. She’s so good at calling these rules 😊
"Foot on foot contact" does not mean there is obstruction. You can see clearly that there was a clear path to the base and the runner went out of his way to contact Rojas' foot by sliding away from the base, lmao.
But that's not the definition of obstruction. You may not like it, but a clear path is not an element in deciding it.
Question 1: No, the baserunner's foot came away from the line to the base to contact the fielder.
Question 2: No. The behind view clearly shows the runner had a path open to the base.
Question 3: IN THE FIELDER'S GLOVE BECAUSE THE IMPEDING DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL AFTER HE HAD THE BALL.
Obstruction occurred when the fielder came forward into the path of the runner *before* he had the ball though. Everyone is focussing on the foot contact in the slide, but that's irrelevant - at that point he can absolutely block the path. Until he actually has the ball, however, he cannot.
Shouldn't the Hebrew animation go the other way?? (Seriously asking).
Edit: Nevermind. Got the answer for point 4. Thanks Linz
This is not obstruction
Saying this is "technically correct" is like saying a bad strike call on a pitch outside the zone is "technically correct" because the umpire thought it was in the zone
That 3B view puts everything in perspective.
Hunter, just mad cause he will not be calling the post season.
Issue with the first question “Did the fielder actually impede the runner in running the bases?” Two thoughts, let me know where I am wrong:
1. The camera angle from behind the umpire shows fielder’s left foot (the foot that contacted the runner) was obstructing the outfield corner of the bag and the runner still had a lane to slide into, right in the center of the bag. When seen from this angle it looks like the runner puts his foot toward fielder’s foot during slide rather than toward the center of the bag which was open.
2. At the time the contact occurred, fielder had full possession of the ball therefore allowing fielder to block access to the bag, even though the fielder did not block it, but kept moving through in the direction he was running before/during/after the contact.
Just observations and thoughts. How rules are written, the vernacular, is super interesting. Way to go Joe Davis on getting the wording correct.
I'm a bit confused on the interpretation of this call. He had to catch the ball where he caught it, did he not? the ball was thrown to an empty bag. It's planting the foot in the middle of the slide path AFTER he caught it that amounts to obstruction(?). but that's only after he had possession of the ball(?).
By rule this was not obstruction because MiggyRo started to field the ball when the potential obstruction began, and had the ball when the contact occurred. You mention the 3rd, "controversial" question of was it necessary? Well, in your opinion, was it? Major cop out to ignore it and just go with the "technically correct" meme. Shame.
I agree. Major cop out. She seems to almost NEVER want to disagree with an umpires call.
I’m a Phillies fan and the call was bad cause what was Rojas supposed to do on the throw? I feel like they should at least have obstruction in plays you can challenge especially with the new obstruction rules in effect this season.
Roberts was saying to Wendelstedt, “I’m just defending my player,” because of the shouting going on. Don’t know why he followed Wendelstedt out into the grass instead of stopping next to Rojas
Narrator: "Turns out, he was not in fact just defending his player."
Wendelstedt is a horrible umpire. Terrible call and horrible game management. He only made that call so he could put on a show. MLB has to continue to get rid of these clowns.
It took me a second to get the Hebrew 😂 but also…it’s fading on screen from left to right! We gotta fix this!
I wouldn't be calling that. But I'm not the umpire.
“A fielder NOT in possession.. impedes progress.” He had the ball when he impeded. Bad call.
He had the ball and immediately made a baseball play, another dumb DK based rule.
3rd baseman's foot essentially blocked or impeded the runner's foot from touching the bag. Hence, obstruction, regardless of the baseball play made in the act of tagging. Designed to prevent injury. Call was correct.
@@hawaiianstarman You are allowed to block when you have the ball. What MLB is calling "obstruction" now occurred several feet before - and is typical of the BS rules MLB is so fond of now. Just like the plays at home last year, the fielder has to magic himself out of the way - but still somehow be in a position to make a play.
@@hawaiianstarmanby definition he had the ball so how is it obstruction?
@@brianmullaney6237 He planted his foot as he was in the act of receiving the ball. It's not like he was standing there waiting. Rojas should have been there earlier and in a position to receive the ball where his foot wasn't in the basepath for the runner to hit. If you carry your logic to steals or plays at home then the defense gets to block and wait for the ball on a lot more plays. If he caught the ball a step before he planted that foot it's a different story imo.
Video is not clear at all. Contact on the slide occurs after the fielder has the ball so the actual slide part is irrelevant to the call.
@@stephenbeck7222 but, without the ball, rojas moved his body into a blocking position long before he “fielded” the throw when he didnt “need to” in order to field the throw.
I'm not a fan of Wendelstedt's reaction here. To me this is one of those plays that the umpire needs to be ready to explain why the call was made because it's not that common of a play. Wendelstedt seemed like he was too proud to take any questioning and it's hard to blame Dave Roberts for going out there on the defensive seeing how Wendelstedt was talking to Rojas. I also found it interesting that crew chief Marvin Hudson wasn't anywhere nearby to try and diffuse the situation. Almost seemed like he was letting him handle the mess he ultimately created. I really hope next year Wendelstedt is on a crew with a chief like Iassogna or Miller who can help him mellow out and handle situations better than he has
I fail to see any obstruction on this play. I get the blocking while fielding POE, but he had the ball and time for part of a tag before the contact occured. Unless I missed something, it doesn't look like he impeded the runner while trying to cover the base either. This is too tickt tacky.
I couldn't help notice how you drew a curved base path, which conveniently crossed into the edge of Rojas' foot in order to make it appear as though Rojas was obstructing the base.
Is this like the plate blocking rule where they don't care about how close the runner is? Because I'm a Phillies fan and the contact didn't occur until he had the ball. I know contact isn't necessary for obstruction but Bohm didn't do anything differently because he was there, he really wasn't impeded from his normal route or speed until the contact.
This is pretty much exactly like the plate-blocking rule except that there's no foul line to demarcate where the fielder can set up, so it's much less consistent.
I still say that this was not technically correct. That defensive player gave a clear path to the base. If I am the offensive player, I just need to initiate contact with a defender anywhere and it's obstruction? Get real!
I don't see it on this one. I get the rule but watching the play I do not see the fielder's movement make the runner stop, slow down or deviate his chosen pathway to the base in any way. As for the fleet touching the fielder had the ball. This one I have to disagree on.
When you say a [judgment] call like this is technically correct, would a non-call also be technically correct? I believe you said somewhere else that the obstruction was adjudged prior to Rojas fielding the ball. Would it have been just as technically correct to judge that Rojas did not obstruct there, was in the act of fielding the ball by the time any potential obstruction occurred, so did not commit obstruction?
I was at this game and I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with the call. The runner had access to the bag and chose to slide into the fielder's leg. The fielder was making a play on the ball and then applied the tag. Runner is out all day.
The baseball rulebook needs a complete overhaul.
Hunter Wendelstedt is a diva who has to make every game about HIM. Roberts is allowed to ask for an explanation, and he also felt that he had to protect his player who was also arguing the call. Roberts did everything right and got an ejection for his efforts. I also don't agree with the obstruction call as there is no way you get a tag down without that exact type of sequence. As a Giants fan, the Dodgers got a super bad deal there. And I H.A.T.E. "technically correct"
"ACT OF FIELDING" means (player HAD to be in that spot to catch the ball) . . 1) This Fielder could have been in front or behind the basepath and still caught the ball. . . 2) Runner made contact with Fielder who was in an illegal position without the ball. . . . . Another coach getting tossed over a correct call! This season just gets better and better
He had the ball when contact was made. What are you talking about?
Kimchi!
He "blocked" the runner because of contact, but he wasn't blocking the base. Maybe MLB should adopt the college rule.
Obstruction is a judgement call - while I didn't agree with the call of obstruction (I think there was no obstruction until Rojas has possession of the ball when he is absolutely allowed to be anywhere he wants at that point) if U3 feels there was, he made the correct type of obstruction call and enforced it correctly. Now, the actions of U3 after the call were just bad IMO - Can and should Rojas be able to get clarification on the call without being yelled at? Absolutely. Can the manager come out and get an explanation? Absolutely - U3 should not have given the immediate stop sign on the manager coming out. If you're going to make this call on the field, then you stand your ground and explain to the player/manager why you made the call, what you saw, THEN you move on - you calmly answer the questions they ask, then move on. If after that explanation, the manager or player doesn't want to move on, then you can give the warning/eject at that point. "In my judgement, the SS impeded the runner prior to possessing the ball" is all you have to say - then we move on.
Sorry but no, the foot on foot contact is not a confirmation of Rojas impeding Bohm's run, that contact is a result of Bohm's slide with his front foot moving towards Rojas left foot who, btw, was pulling it "lateraly backwards". If a calm thorough review of the play is going to set it as technically correct, then the rule itself needs to be changed. What was Rojas supposed to do? run aruound third? Don't move towards the base until he had the ball? Just sit and look how they take the base? I get they're trying to protect the players but this is absurd, categorizing any minimal contact as impeding someone from running is not only soft but absurd
I disagree with almost every part of this analysis. But i guess the thing I'm most confused by is that Rojas had possession of the ball when the contact took place so it can't be obstruction. Why are we glossing over that?
Because obstruction doesn't just occur at the point of contact.
Think of it as when you're driving a car and have the right of way. If someone pulls out in front of you and makes you have to swerve or tap your brakes then that's obstruction, even if there never is any contact. The runner has the right to be unimpeded, and a fielder receiving the throw has the responsibility to do nothing whatsoever to impede the runner until the moment they get the ball. The fielder doesn't have the right to take the most direct route to the bag to receive the throw.
@whodoyoudancefor I appreciate that answer, thank you. I do not agree that the runner was impeded in any way BEFORE Rojas had the ball. And AFTER possessing the ball there can't be obstruction so that is really the issue: Was Rojas impeding the runner before possession? And again I think it's clear there was zero.
@@mr.larocca5150 I think the call was technically correct. To go back to the driving analogy, if you pull out in front of someone and make them have to pause, alter, or consider altering their course or speed it's obstruction. In order to be 100% okay you have to have 0% impact because anything whatsoever gets interpreted in favour of the runner.
I don't know if you watch hockey at all, but it's similar to goaltender inference. If you willingly skate into the blue paint the standard for what qualifies as interference is much lower than if you're pushed in there by an opposing player. Similarly here, if you choose to take that route and be in that spot you must be absolutely flawless.
@@whodoyoudanceforI'm not a hockey guy, but I appreciate your calm and thorough explanation.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct! 😂💀
Lindsay is wrong here. You tell me how he’s supposed to field the throw there other than the way he did. It’s a poor call.
And hunter as usual handled this like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum and like a low brow , classless guy who wants to be anywhere but on the field umpiring an MLB game.
Between the written rule and the unwritten rule, the written rule isn't always the appropriate rule.
The written rule is what officials are instructed to enforce.
Thanks for the Hebrew translation....
Thanks for the laugh.
Rojas foot was never in front of third base bag when making the tag on the sliding runner. #badcall #mlbrigged
Your analysis on the very first point you raise ignores the fact that Rojas fielded the ball AND had it in his glove BEFORE any contact was made with the runner.
nah. you can be called for blocking the plate before you have the ball. I've seen this at home plenty of times. you cannot stand in the baseline waiting for the ball. the issue I don't understand is that the path he took to the bag was natural to catch the ball. I definitely see him go out of his way to block the runner's path to the base, but that's only after he caught the ball. in order for this to be obstruction (if I understand correctly) he has to be called for obstructing the runners path to the base BEFORE catching the ball. so was he obstructing the runner long before...as in before he even slid? I think that's the only valid question here. the foot planted was definitely blocking, but he also definitely had the ball before he did that.
100% the imcorrect call. You call this obstruction, please explain where you would like the defensive player to go? Should he be in left field and activate his go go gadget arm to try to make the tag. If you look at the slide, the guys foot actually slide to the right and into the defensive players foot, which was outside the base when he caught the ball. Terrible call
This is typical Hunter Wendelstedt. Like Cowboy Joe, he wants to be the show but doesn't care about his own performance - because his bosses don't care. There will be zero accountability for this with MLB and the union, and Hunter will think he can do anything he wants here, even if it's a piss-poor job. He's a complete clown, like Cuzzi, Estabrook, and Bucknor.
Why are you writing in Hebrew?
It is a joke about Passover, which has a part where 4 questions are asked.
@@jacobgolder6 Hence also the matza when she says "4 questions"
I wouldn't have called it. IF the fielder is blocking the basepath before he has the ball it's by half an inch. The contact occurs on a step he takes after possessing the ball. If you look frame by frame around 1:42 it sure doesn't look like there's a problem before the ball is caught. The runner wasn't wide of the baseline to need that angle to get to the plate and didn't have to adjust their path.
I don't see enough to make a call of obstruction here at all.
on another topic I wish youtube would let you mark a specific frame instead of just a timestamp. Would make this a lot easier.
Does the runner have to change where he runs as a result of the fielder?
@@crimson2856 Not that I see -- that's why I commented that he wasn't wide of the baseline. If he had been that's different.
Why didn't Dave Roberts challenge the call instead.