Wow. Been playing first base for 21 years and I didn’t realize that 1) the first baseman can’t block the base (without the ball) from the runner getting back, and 2) that doing so actually would award the runner the NEXT base. Love these videos for teaching me rules nuances!
I've had six or seven of these calls over the years - a couple resulted in the ejection of the defensive coach. They really don't like the one base award for Type A Obstruction. Under high school rules, all obstruction results in at least a one base award so it doesn't surprise high school coaches as much. But they still don't like it.
Love Lindsay's explanation. Agreed. Plus, we need to penalize the defense for that obstructive act by awarding the runner 2nd base or those first basemen would be doing it all the time.
What happens if the offensive manager protests that the runner was *not* awarded 2nd? This is not a judgment call. It's a rule! Manager: "Did you rule that there was obstruction?" Umpire: "Yes." Manager: "Was a play being made on my runner at the time of the obstruction?" Umpire: "Yes." Manager: "Are you going to award him 2nd base?" Umpire: "No." Manager: "I protest your ruling." I know that MLB as a book of official interpretations that do not appear in the rulebook. If that is in there - fine! - as long as all the teams are made aware of that this is the way a play like this is going to be called. My guess is that this is *not* in their TOP SECRET book of official interpretations, however. To me, this encourages fielders to block the base on pickoff attempts like this because there really is no penalty for doing so ... apparently.
I have always disliked baseball's 2-version obstruction rule. In softball (at least in rule sets I use) the runner simply always gets the base they would have obtained had there been no obstruction, which in this case would have been back to first base. In a run-down, it could depend on which way they were going. The whole "penalize the defence by awarding the next base" can lead to offensive players trying to steal an obstruction call on the way past a defender.
But the rules cover that situation if a runner "goes out of his/her way" to try to get an obstruction call. A runner can't just "steal" a call if he's the one who causes the situation.
@@alanhess9306 High school has rules that are punitive. They are students who need to learn there are consequences in life. I can see just protecting a runner back into his retreat base in this particular case play. You do make a good point. Rizzo should have suffered a penalty for cheating.
@@rayray4192 Since commenting on this I learned from a HS softball umpire friend of mine who tells me the NFHS softball rule is the same as NFHS baseball. That means there is always a one base award when obstruction occurs.
This is where the rule contradicts itself. The first part of the rule awards him first base "back", as it were, but the latter part says he should get second on the ObT1 on this play.
Thats the way I was taught to play first? But anyway it is possible that the runner got a touch on the bag that we cant see and then he left him on first when Rizzo pulled his hand away?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what the call was. Safe/no obstruction on the initial play (although you could make a case for obstruction, it's debatable as to whether or not he was actually impeded going back to the base). Then F3 stood up, which pulled the runner's hand off the base. That's just safe, allow him to remain on the base, not really obstruction. There have been several call like this that have gone the other way, the most famous (or infamous, if you are a Braves fan) being the Kent Hrbek/Ron Gant play in the '91 World Series. One of the criteria for the call is it must be clear the runner's momentum would not have pulled him off the base. On this play, the runner was stopped, then his hand was lifted up.
The rule says that the runner is awarded the base he would have reached had there been no obstruction. The runner was trying to get back to first base, not to advance to second. Therefore the umpire's call is correct. Read what the rule actually says. There is no automatic advance to the next base like in a balk.
Type A obstruction is always an award of at least one base in official rules because a play is being made on the runner. You are referencing type B obstruction. Apparently the M.L. B. umpire manual has instructed umpires that there is an exception to type A obstruction on pick off plays.
@@rayray4192 You are pretending to know more about the rules of baseball than an experienced major league umpire, and yet you want to lecture me to educate myself? I am reminded of the old saying, "Physician heal thyself".
@@markl1733 you are wrong. I’m fully aware I don’t know everything. I made a mistake in this very case play and have admitted so and apologized. You are ignorant. You don’t know the difference between type A ( type 1) and type B( type 2) obstruction. This case play has a play being made on a runner; that’s type A obstruction if you are going to rule obstruction. You state,” The rule says that the runner is awarded the base he would have reached had there been no obstruction.” You are defining type B obstruction, when no play is being made on a runner. Type A obstruction is always an award of at least one advance base. That’s the entire point of the video. Why did Alan Porter not award R-1 second base if he called obstruction? Perhaps Alan did not call obstruction. You are embarrassing yourself.
I have also seen this when the runner is stealing 2nd base. They tend to put their leg or foot in front of the base. Also at third base. Seen a few teams doing it, but the Yankees do that the most...
Half a lifetime ago, I called this in a 12 year old Bronco (Pony) game. 2 Man mechanic and I'm in the field. Big Boy first baseman falls on his butt right in front of 1st base on the pickoff. The kid slides in head first trying to wiggle his hand under the butt of the first baseman. 1st baseman blocked the ball, picked it up and tagged the runner. "Time!!! You can't do that, runner get on first base." The underlying rules were MLB if not covered in Pony and I remember discussing this with a "higher" umpire. I did not award a base, just called the kid safe and kicked the can down the road. Looking up the rule, my higher friend told me I kicked the call and should have awarded 2nd base. I told him to gtfoh and that I would have had a riot had I a. Called the kid out or b, awarded the runner 2nd base. My argument was, name one instance in MLB where you've seen it called with a base award on a pickoff play. There are plenty of overthrown balls with 1B obstruction but none I'd ever seen for blocking of a base. Looks like my friend was right. I just hope that he smoked so much during that discussion that his higherness clouded his memory.
lol thinking Fracona had a clue on challenge situations this series. Great analysis of the play, and I love Tito, but he had just about the worst series with challenges ever. He lost a ton of challenges, including obvious correct calls, an inexplicably didn't challenge two blatantly obviously wrong calls.
I was questioning myself saying, "wait a second, doesn't the runner get second for that?" And you confirmed it for me...not sure why they didn't award him 2nd...I would've done it and tossed Boone out if need be
My assumption is the league knows that the manager who gets tossed and the media would be all over the umpire for that call (even though it’s correct) and they’ve decided that it’s not worth the headache and the best move is to keep the runner where they would be. Personally, i think that’s a good, common sense decision
@@bananaland5445 granted it is good common sense, but, in my opinion, we should still enforce the rule as such regardless of the scenario...not our fault the players and managers don't know the rules
What's the difference between this and the second baseman blocking the base on a steal attempt? Middle infielders do it all the time and I've never seen obstruction called.
If I'm the Cleveland manager I'm protesting the game. He'll win the protest easily. It will also remind every first baseman that (as quoted in the video), "You can't do that". Oh, and it will have every umpire on every level digging in the book and discussing the play.
@@redfan15 To me it looked like hand over the leg (bent to block the base from the ground level), then Rizzo stands back up more fully so that his rising leg pushes his hand off the base while the tag is still applied. I think Lindsay is right - the first illegal act was obstruction, with the second (using his leg to push his hand off) being incidental. (And imo, the second illegal act completely justifies an award of second - he obstructed with the intent* of pushing his hand off with plausible deniability. If you let fielders keep doing that with no penalty and perhaps a reward if the umpire doesn't realize and calls an out, everyone will do it.) * - or if not intent, at least "it would be a secondary direct result of intentionally cheating"
Is it possible that Porter has this as a pushed off the base situation rather than an obstruction call? I agree that obstruction would be correct, but could that explain the failure to award second base?
@@alanhess9306 Clearly not OBS to Porter who saw the hand hindered by the leg but still able to touch the bag before the tag, thus no OBS. He then saw the hand get pushed up off the base by the leg and ruled as per MLBUM instructions to return the runner to his base as safe.
@@jamesmurray3948 You obviously don't know the rule. It does not matter that the runner's hand was still able to reach the bag. Once there was contact by the fielder without the ball, we have obstruction. The rule book says "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.", which is exactly what happened.
Interesting. Do you have the Jaksa Roder interp handy? I'm thinking this is such an obvious obstruction call, and i know MLB is a "show", but I think the answer could be more complicated.
@@steveknowlton4632 I will look it up for you in the morning with coffee. I respect Jaska/ Roder. My fuzzy memory tells me there is an exception on pick off plays and the base runner is protected back to his retreat base instead of being awarded his advance base.
@@steveknowlton4632 I spent 45 minutes in the 13th edition of Jaska/ Roder re-interpretation of the rules of professional baseball, and I could not find an exception to type 1 obstruction. My memory failed. I thought you could protect a runner back into first base. I’m now thinking there are times a baserunner is protected into hid retreat base during type 2 obstruction. Perhaps that’s my confusion. Someone posted Jaska/ Roder says porter’s call is correct. Porter doesn’t tell us what he called.
@@davej3781 hey Dave, I think we know Rizzo was being a bit of a wiseguy doing what he did! Funny to read what others have written here invoking the rule book in a pro (MLB POSTSEASON) environment. I am sure you have worked with "text book umpires" with NO GAME MANAGEMENT SKILLS. What I am writing is, there are rules yes and there are situations you manage irrespective of some arcane rule!!!! THAT IS WHY AN AWARD OF 2ND BASE WAS NOT GIVEN. Take care Dave be safe
@@dougthegreat1808 Umpires aren't entitled to make stuff up. They aren't there to make the easy call. They're there to make the correct call. I'll be shocked if Porter is on the WS crew bc he messed this call up. Major League umpires miss stuff too. Doesn't mean it's correct.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow. Been playing first base for 21 years and I didn’t realize that 1) the first baseman can’t block the base (without the ball) from the runner getting back, and 2) that doing so actually would award the runner the NEXT base.
Love these videos for teaching me rules nuances!
I've had six or seven of these calls over the years - a couple resulted in the ejection of the defensive coach. They really don't like the one base award for Type A Obstruction. Under high school rules, all obstruction results in at least a one base award so it doesn't surprise high school coaches as much. But they still don't like it.
people are out here not knowing this?
@@M747022 guess so 🤷🏻♂️
I would kind of like to see a replay from behind first base...to see if Rizzo was positioned like that before the throw.
Love Lindsay's explanation. Agreed. Plus, we need to penalize the defense for that obstructive act by awarding the runner 2nd base or those first basemen would be doing it all the time.
INCORRECT
No, Doug The Great your incorrect.
@@mikek82 no Mike you are INCORRECT, whatever you wrote as I forgot nor care
@@dougthegreat1808 Why do you do this? I think you know there should be a one base award here so why do you say rj and mike are incorrect?
I really like this. Great game management by porter.
What happens if the offensive manager protests that the runner was *not* awarded 2nd? This is not a judgment call. It's a rule!
Manager: "Did you rule that there was obstruction?"
Umpire: "Yes."
Manager: "Was a play being made on my runner at the time of the obstruction?"
Umpire: "Yes."
Manager: "Are you going to award him 2nd base?"
Umpire: "No."
Manager: "I protest your ruling."
I know that MLB as a book of official interpretations that do not appear in the rulebook. If that is in there - fine! - as long as all the teams are made aware of that this is the way a play like this is going to be called. My guess is that this is *not* in their TOP SECRET book of official interpretations, however.
To me, this encourages fielders to block the base on pickoff attempts like this because there really is no penalty for doing so ... apparently.
I thought Wes McCauley was the one who said "You can't do that"
I have always disliked baseball's 2-version obstruction rule. In softball (at least in rule sets I use) the runner simply always gets the base they would have obtained had there been no obstruction, which in this case would have been back to first base. In a run-down, it could depend on which way they were going. The whole "penalize the defence by awarding the next base" can lead to offensive players trying to steal an obstruction call on the way past a defender.
But the rules cover that situation if a runner "goes out of his/her way" to try to get an obstruction call. A runner can't just "steal" a call if he's the one who causes the situation.
This is a hardball site. If a base runner tries to create obstruction just deal with it by not calling obstruction
I don't like the softball rule simply because there is no penalty for obstructing a runner going back to his base.
@@alanhess9306 High school has rules that are punitive. They are students who need to learn there are consequences in life. I can see just protecting a runner back into his retreat base in this particular case play. You do make a good point. Rizzo should have suffered a penalty for cheating.
@@rayray4192 Since commenting on this I learned from a HS softball umpire friend of mine who tells me the NFHS softball rule is the same as NFHS baseball. That means there is always a one base award when obstruction occurs.
This is where the rule contradicts itself. The first part of the rule awards him first base "back", as it were, but the latter part says he should get second on the ObT1 on this play.
Rizzo knew exactly what he did and knew it was illegal. That’s why he didn’t argue.
Thats the way I was taught to play first? But anyway it is possible that the runner got a touch on the bag that we cant see and then he left him on first when Rizzo pulled his hand away?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what the call was. Safe/no obstruction on the initial play (although you could make a case for obstruction, it's debatable as to whether or not he was actually impeded going back to the base). Then F3 stood up, which pulled the runner's hand off the base. That's just safe, allow him to remain on the base, not really obstruction.
There have been several call like this that have gone the other way, the most famous (or infamous, if you are a Braves fan) being the Kent Hrbek/Ron Gant play in the '91 World Series. One of the criteria for the call is it must be clear the runner's momentum would not have pulled him off the base. On this play, the runner was stopped, then his hand was lifted up.
I’m starting to think you are correct.
"ballsy call" for postseason, with all the attention. In NHFS, the runner would have been awarded second base as a penalty.
The rule says that the runner is awarded the base he would have reached had there been no obstruction. The runner was trying to get back to first base, not to advance to second. Therefore the umpire's call is correct. Read what the rule actually says. There is no automatic advance to the next base like in a balk.
Type A obstruction is always an award of at least one base in official rules because a play is being made on the runner. You are referencing type B obstruction. Apparently the M.L. B. umpire manual has instructed umpires that there is an exception to type A obstruction on pick off plays.
Take your own advice and read the rule. Educate yourself
@@rayray4192 You are pretending to know more about the rules of baseball than an experienced major league umpire, and yet you want to lecture me to educate myself? I am reminded of the old saying, "Physician heal thyself".
@@markl1733 you are wrong. I’m fully aware I don’t know everything. I made a mistake in this very case play and have admitted so and apologized. You are ignorant. You don’t know the difference between type A ( type 1) and type B( type 2) obstruction. This case play has a play being made on a runner; that’s type A obstruction if you are going to rule obstruction. You state,” The rule says that the runner is awarded the base he would have reached had there been no obstruction.” You are defining type B obstruction, when no play is being made on a runner. Type A obstruction is always an award of at least one advance base. That’s the entire point of the video. Why did Alan Porter not award R-1 second base if he called obstruction? Perhaps Alan did not call obstruction. You are embarrassing yourself.
Yes, good advice, read what the rule actually says. Take your own advice.
I have also seen this when the runner is stealing 2nd base. They tend to put their leg or foot in front of the base. Also at third base. Seen a few teams doing it, but the Yankees do that the most...
Marwin Gonzalez did this on a Jorge Mateo Stolen base attempt and the umpire called him out. The Yankees even put the video on their tiktok account.
This happened to me last night and it pissed me off so much because I got called out.
Half a lifetime ago, I called this in a 12 year old Bronco (Pony) game. 2 Man mechanic and I'm in the field. Big Boy first baseman falls on his butt right in front of 1st base on the pickoff. The kid slides in head first trying to wiggle his hand under the butt of the first baseman. 1st baseman blocked the ball, picked it up and tagged the runner. "Time!!! You can't do that, runner get on first base." The underlying rules were MLB if not covered in Pony and I remember discussing this with a "higher" umpire. I did not award a base, just called the kid safe and kicked the can down the road. Looking up the rule, my higher friend told me I kicked the call and should have awarded 2nd base. I told him to gtfoh and that I would have had a riot had I a. Called the kid out or b, awarded the runner 2nd base. My argument was, name one instance in MLB where you've seen it called with a base award on a pickoff play. There are plenty of overthrown balls with 1B obstruction but none I'd ever seen for blocking of a base. Looks like my friend was right. I just hope that he smoked so much during that discussion that his higherness clouded his memory.
lol thinking Fracona had a clue on challenge situations this series. Great analysis of the play, and I love Tito, but he had just about the worst series with challenges ever. He lost a ton of challenges, including obvious correct calls, an inexplicably didn't challenge two blatantly obviously wrong calls.
I was questioning myself saying, "wait a second, doesn't the runner get second for that?" And you confirmed it for me...not sure why they didn't award him 2nd...I would've done it and tossed Boone out if need be
My assumption is the league knows that the manager who gets tossed and the media would be all over the umpire for that call (even though it’s correct) and they’ve decided that it’s not worth the headache and the best move is to keep the runner where they would be.
Personally, i think that’s a good, common sense decision
@@bananaland5445 granted it is good common sense, but, in my opinion, we should still enforce the rule as such regardless of the scenario...not our fault the players and managers don't know the rules
@@seymourbrown7647 penalize Rizzo for cheating- award R-1 second base. What a manager thinks is irrelevant
What's the difference between this and the second baseman blocking the base on a steal attempt? Middle infielders do it all the time and I've never seen obstruction called.
In that scenario, the runner would be awarded one base. Since they had not made it to second base, yet, second base would be the award.
@@kevinspence6171 I'm talking about cases where the runner is called out for not being able to touch the base.
@@noragar I see obstruction called all the time on the type of play you describe.
Where was the timeout?
If I'm the Cleveland manager I'm protesting the game. He'll win the protest easily. It will also remind every first baseman that (as quoted in the video), "You can't do that". Oh, and it will have every umpire on every level digging in the book and discussing the play.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as playing under protest any more. It was canned after the 2019 season.
Whether it happened or not, I think the official had the hand being removed from the bag.
thats what I think he actually got a hand in and then Rizzo pulled his hand off.
@@redfan15 To me it looked like hand over the leg (bent to block the base from the ground level), then Rizzo stands back up more fully so that his rising leg pushes his hand off the base while the tag is still applied. I think Lindsay is right - the first illegal act was obstruction, with the second (using his leg to push his hand off) being incidental. (And imo, the second illegal act completely justifies an award of second - he obstructed with the intent* of pushing his hand off with plausible deniability. If you let fielders keep doing that with no penalty and perhaps a reward if the umpire doesn't realize and calls an out, everyone will do it.)
* - or if not intent, at least "it would be a secondary direct result of intentionally cheating"
@@darkarima after watching in a larger screen I think you are correct.
Is it possible that Porter has this as a pushed off the base situation rather than an obstruction call? I agree that obstruction would be correct, but could that explain the failure to award second base?
It was not OBS. Rizzo pushed the hand off the bag.
@@jamesmurray3948 No. Fairly clear that his hand touched the bag after the tag was made: obstruction.
@@jamesmurray3948 Rizzo blocked the base without possession of the ball. Clearly obstruction.
@@alanhess9306 Clearly not OBS to Porter who saw the hand hindered by the leg but still able to touch the bag before the tag, thus no OBS. He then saw the hand get pushed up off the base by the leg and ruled as per MLBUM instructions to return the runner to his base as safe.
@@jamesmurray3948 You obviously don't know the rule. It does not matter that the runner's hand was still able to reach the bag. Once there was contact by the fielder without the ball, we have obstruction. The rule book says "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.", which is exactly what happened.
Former NHL Referee Mike Leggo with another notable "you can't do that": th-cam.com/video/josEPIBNhEw/w-d-xo.html
say both
Jaksa Roder manual says this was correct.
Interesting. Do you have the Jaksa Roder interp handy? I'm thinking this is such an obvious obstruction call, and i know MLB is a "show", but I think the answer could be more complicated.
@@steveknowlton4632 I will look it up for you in the morning with coffee. I respect Jaska/ Roder. My fuzzy memory tells me there is an exception on pick off plays and the base runner is protected back to his retreat base instead of being awarded his advance base.
@@steveknowlton4632 I spent 45 minutes in the 13th edition of Jaska/ Roder re-interpretation of the rules of professional baseball, and I could not find an exception to type 1 obstruction. My memory failed. I thought you could protect a runner back into first base. I’m now thinking there are times a baserunner is protected into hid retreat base during type 2 obstruction. Perhaps that’s my confusion. Someone posted Jaska/ Roder says porter’s call is correct. Porter doesn’t tell us what he called.
Can you give the Jaska/Roder citation?
Boy..imagine the entitled crybaby Boone is they gave the runner 2nd base.
We would just go in feet first if the 1B blocked the bag.
Does "in the immediate act of catching the ball" mean anything?????
Batted ball - yes
Thrown ball - no
@@swoosh1428 plays at the plate, same scenario where I did not see obstruction called at the pro level......
@@davej3781 hey Dave, I think we know Rizzo was being a bit of a wiseguy doing what he did! Funny to read what others have written here invoking the rule book in a pro (MLB POSTSEASON) environment. I am sure you have worked with "text book umpires" with NO GAME MANAGEMENT SKILLS. What I am writing is, there are rules yes and there are situations you manage irrespective of some arcane rule!!!! THAT IS WHY AN AWARD OF 2ND BASE WAS NOT GIVEN. Take care Dave be safe
@@dougthegreat1808 Umpires aren't entitled to make stuff up. They aren't there to make the easy call. They're there to make the correct call. I'll be shocked if Porter is on the WS crew bc he messed this call up. Major League umpires miss stuff too. Doesn't mean it's correct.
@@cameronhaney3378 PLEASE, DON'T SHOW EVERYONE HERE YOUR IGNORANCE AT MY EXPENSE. NOTHING WAS EVER WRITTEN ABOUT "MAKING ANYTHING UP".....