Obstruction is typically committed by a fielder against a base runner, while interference is typically committed by a base runner against a fielder, or the batter against the catcher.
@@lew123drums to call fan interference, the fan must interfere with the ball or a fielder. I'll give you a hint, it involves a base coach... but no, you can't just say "coach's interference". I saw your answer after a game last night, so I asked my partner if he knew the answer. He couldn't think of it either, but he seemed rather underwhelmed when I told him the answer... but it was after 10pm, we were tired and hungry so that may have dulled his excitement.
Kenny Singleton, the recently retired Yankee announcer and outstanding Oriole player, is the only announcer I ever saw who routinely made the correct calls on umpire rulings. As a 30 yr + umpire he is the only announcer who seemed to know the rules about as well as an umpire
Early in the video, there are several examples of baserunners running into infielders attempting to catch the ball and the runner is out. At 8:20 of the video, there is a dribbler in front of the plate. The batter runs into the catcher who was attempting to field the ball. The runner is called safe. What's the difference between the two examples. The fielder attempts to field the ball and the runner runs into him ... two different calls. Are there different rules for the batter and catcher than for infielders and baserunners?
It looks like in the play you referenced at 8:20, the umpire judged that the pitcher had a better play on the ball than the catcher, therefore pitcher was the protected fielder, thus the catcher was obstructing the batter-runner who was then awarded 1st base on the type 1 obstruction (which is also an immediate dead ball, so it's odd the umpire wasnt immediately calling time as well). Watching the play on video that's not how I'd rule it, but this very much depends on how the umpire sees the action in the moment it happens without benefit of video and time to pause and consider. I would instead judge the catcher was the one fielding the ball, and the contact between catcher and batter-runner is an armbrister tangle (OBR 6.01(a)(10) Comment) therefore there's no violation and the out at 1B would stand. But I wasn't there
to answer your question at the end, yes there actually is a different rule for the batter-runner and catcher than for other infielders and runners, it's the 6.01(a)(10) Comment I mentioned in my first answer: Rule 6.01(a )(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base. However as I mentioned, the umpire in that play did not apply this rule; instead he decided that the catcher wasn't fielding the ball (even though he did eventually field it), and instead ruled obstruction as per OBR 6.01(h)(1).
@@lew123drums if you hang around baseball and particularly umpiring-related videos enough, you'll find me always happy to talk rules/interpretations with those willing to discuss
@@davej3781 I've been watching since the early 60s and have always had trouble with interference, obstruction, and balk calls ... sometimes I don't see what is being called ... everything looks normal to the eye, and with the compilations produced for UA-cam by fans, it's not often that any in-depth explanation is made ... thanks again, Dave.
My son was trucking to first base down the line and the first baseman ran straight into him at first causing a major collision. What’s the rule on that. The kid is a damn good athlete and could’ve turned up avoiding the collision but did it anyway. He was called safe. It was a tie at first but the collision seemed excessive.
Depends. Was he running on the inside of the baseline? If so, that's interference (base runner against fielder) If he was on the outside of the baseline it's obstruction. (fielder against base runner)
if the collision is between the first-baseman in possession of the ball and the runner trying to reach 1st base, it's likely nothing. it doesn't matter where the runner is running. if the first baseman doesn't yet have the ball and it's being thrown to him and they collide as he's trying to catch the throw, then it does matter where the runner was running - if he's outside the running lane he's probably out for interference - running lane violation (OBR 5.09(a)(11)). if he's in the running lane, then it's probably nothing or may be obstruction under some conditions and rulesets if they collide after the first baseman misses the throw (and missing the throw was not due to a running lane violation), it's probably obstruction
@@davej3781 Where they're at does matter. All of the people who get called out was because they were running inside of the baseline. "Likely" nothing can't be used with technical moments like this. It's either it is or it isn't.
@@ineedakitkat6628 it doesn't sound like you have a good understanding of the rules at hand. as to my use of the words "likely" and "probably", that's a recognition of the fact that we don't have a real play to look at, all we have is a short verbal description and broad categories of "ifs".
@@davej3781 You don't need a real play, you just need someone who knows the rules to justifiably deduce the correct call based off of the acute comprehension of the play at hand.
that interference rule for first base is stupid as hell. players use that to get the out instead of copping to a bad throw.
someone doesn't know the difference between interference and obstruction
Obstruction is typically committed by a fielder against a base runner, while interference is typically committed by a base runner against a fielder, or the batter against the catcher.
@@ineedakitkat6628 well yeah, you know that and I know that... but apparently whoever puts together "Baseball insider" videos doesn't know that
@@ineedakitkat6628 oh, here's one:
name the kind of interference that involves neither any defensive player nor the ball
@@davej3781 fan interference?
@@lew123drums to call fan interference, the fan must interfere with the ball or a fielder. I'll give you a hint, it involves a base coach... but no, you can't just say "coach's interference".
I saw your answer after a game last night, so I asked my partner if he knew the answer. He couldn't think of it either, but he seemed rather underwhelmed when I told him the answer... but it was after 10pm, we were tired and hungry so that may have dulled his excitement.
Kenny Singleton, the recently retired Yankee announcer and outstanding Oriole player, is the only announcer I ever saw who routinely made the correct calls on umpire rulings. As a 30 yr + umpire he is the only announcer who seemed to know the rules about as well as an umpire
Will you do some Canadian baseball stuff?
Hello and baseball insider is the best baseball youtuber I watch
Thanks bro 😎
Why are the catcher's mitt that close to the batter??
Early in the video, there are several examples of baserunners running into infielders attempting to catch the ball and the runner is out. At 8:20 of the video, there is a dribbler in front of the plate. The batter runs into the catcher who was attempting to field the ball. The runner is called safe. What's the difference between the two examples. The fielder attempts to field the ball and the runner runs into him ... two different calls. Are there different rules for the batter and catcher than for infielders and baserunners?
It looks like in the play you referenced at 8:20, the umpire judged that the pitcher had a better play on the ball than the catcher, therefore pitcher was the protected fielder, thus the catcher was obstructing the batter-runner who was then awarded 1st base on the type 1 obstruction (which is also an immediate dead ball, so it's odd the umpire wasnt immediately calling time as well). Watching the play on video that's not how I'd rule it, but this very much depends on how the umpire sees the action in the moment it happens without benefit of video and time to pause and consider.
I would instead judge the catcher was the one fielding the ball, and the contact between catcher and batter-runner is an armbrister tangle (OBR 6.01(a)(10) Comment) therefore there's no violation and the out at 1B would stand. But I wasn't there
to answer your question at the end, yes there actually is a different rule for the batter-runner and catcher than for other infielders and runners, it's the 6.01(a)(10) Comment I mentioned in my first answer:
Rule 6.01(a )(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner
going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the
ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.
“Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called
only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him
the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license
to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the
ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the
pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall
be called and the base runner awarded first base.
However as I mentioned, the umpire in that play did not apply this rule; instead he decided that the catcher wasn't fielding the ball (even though he did eventually field it), and instead ruled obstruction as per OBR 6.01(h)(1).
@@davej3781 Thanks so much for answering my questions ... I appreciate you taking the time to do so ...
@@lew123drums if you hang around baseball and particularly umpiring-related videos enough, you'll find me always happy to talk rules/interpretations with those willing to discuss
@@davej3781 I've been watching since the early 60s and have always had trouble with interference, obstruction, and balk calls ... sometimes I don't see what is being called ... everything looks normal to the eye, and with the compilations produced for UA-cam by fans, it's not often that any in-depth explanation is made ... thanks again, Dave.
Hi
First and hi
My son was trucking to first base down the line and the first baseman ran straight into him at first causing a major collision. What’s the rule on that. The kid is a damn good athlete and could’ve turned up avoiding the collision but did it anyway. He was called safe. It was a tie at first but the collision seemed excessive.
Depends. Was he running on the inside of the baseline? If so, that's interference (base runner against fielder)
If he was on the outside of the baseline it's obstruction. (fielder against base runner)
if the collision is between the first-baseman in possession of the ball and the runner trying to reach 1st base, it's likely nothing. it doesn't matter where the runner is running.
if the first baseman doesn't yet have the ball and it's being thrown to him and they collide as he's trying to catch the throw, then it does matter where the runner was running - if he's outside the running lane he's probably out for interference - running lane violation (OBR 5.09(a)(11)). if he's in the running lane, then it's probably nothing or may be obstruction under some conditions and rulesets
if they collide after the first baseman misses the throw (and missing the throw was not due to a running lane violation), it's probably obstruction
@@davej3781 Where they're at does matter. All of the people who get called out was because they were running inside of the baseline.
"Likely" nothing can't be used with technical moments like this. It's either it is or it isn't.
@@ineedakitkat6628 it doesn't sound like you have a good understanding of the rules at hand.
as to my use of the words "likely" and "probably", that's a recognition of the fact that we don't have a real play to look at, all we have is a short verbal description and broad categories of "ifs".
@@davej3781 You don't need a real play, you just need someone who knows the rules to justifiably deduce the correct call based off of the acute comprehension of the play at hand.