Rule Q.

[Reality]

zig or any that can find out for a fact.

8th inning.
Had ARod simply ran into pitcher Bronson Arroyo and not swatted his arm and knocked the ball loose, even tho Arroyo would have tagged him out, would ARod have been awarded 1st base?

Due to:
a) Arroyo having his own feet (foot?) in the runners rectangle?  
b.)  For that matter 1st baseman Doug Mientkiewicz also being in the runners rectangle thus blocking ARods path to 1st base.

I thought the defensive team has to leave that skinny runners rectangle 100% to the runner.

zig i'm wanting to keep the poll thread strictly for the poll.

[spursfan101]

Props to the officials last night, for making the tough (and correct) calls that needed to be made.

Hope they had police escorts home last night!

[Derek Bodner]

Arod could have run into him, yes, he would have been safe, if Arroyo dropped the ball.

You can be in the base paths to apply a tag though, so interference wouldn't have been called.  If the first baseman had touched Arod, then intereference would be called.  But he didn't touch him, so that's a moot point.

At least that's how I think it works.

[ziggy]

Arod could have run into him, yes, he would have been safe, if Arroyo dropped the ball.

You can be in the base paths to apply a tag though, so interference wouldn't have been called.  If the first baseman had touched Arod, then intereference would be called.  But he didn't touch him, so that's a moot point.

At least that's how I think it works.

Right Bods.  If ARod had hit Arroyo with his body and jarred the ball loose then OK, assuming ARod didn't leave the runners box by going into fair territory.  If the 1B had been in ARods way without the ball and impeaded his progress then ARod would have got first base on a fielders interference.

[Reality]

1B Mientkiewicz is definitely in ARods path.  However it appears pitcher tags ARod from the side as ARod is passing him.  Here is a good but small replay url:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp
hint if you want to freeze frame then move fwd slowly, hit pause twice really fast.

1B Mientkiewicz does a mega bonehead play it looks like.  Look how close he is to ARod and Arroyo and also how both Mientkiewiczs feet are in the rectangle.  Mientkiewicz sets a "pick" blocking Arroyo from 1b.  I think if ARod just runs into him he gets the call??...

Q part 2:  Now zig, if indeed 1B does impede runner after runner is tagged, is that impedement a moot point?  Is it the millisecond a runner is tagged he is out, therefore 1B can obstruct and even if runner procedes to run into obstructing 1b, runner is out.  

Or if runner, in this case ARod, would be as was tagged out by Arroyo, ARod then not swatting at ball, Arod then running into the impedeing 1B Mientkiewicz...
would that be interference and awarded 1st base?  Even tho the interference came just after the tag.  

I'm guessing that the defense can act like a Bullfighter, where he can stand in the runners rectangle then jump away at the last second?  As long as there is not contact?  (Or if defender has the ball, as long as he tags runner 1st, much like a catcher blocking home plate)  Interesting side note a catchers blocking the plate is 100% illegal, just overlooked ever since 1842.  Thats my understanding.  Wonder if likewise the book says 1B or anyone cannot be in front of the baserunner in that little rectange but its just overlooked.

[Derek Bodner]

It would be a hard case to make if:
1) The 1b and runner never made contact
2) The runner was out before they would ever make contact.

Really, one of two things has to happen for intereference:
1) They must collide
2) The runner must be forced to leave the basepath.

Neither happened.  You can't call intereference on "something that might happen if nobody moves and if the baserunner doesn't get out.

And yes, once the runner's out, there can no longer be intereference.  Just like a shortstop jumping over a runner to attempt a double play.  The runner's out, so he no longer needs to worry about being in his path.

Interesting side note a catchers blocking the plate is 100% illegal

Erm.....not if he has the ball.

[Wolverine]

Reality,

It is true that catchers, according to the official rulebook of MLB, CANNOT block home.  That is the case for ANY defensive player at ANY base.  It has simply been ignored by umpires through the years, just one of the many "unofficial" rules umpires have made up and are now accepted as legal (spinning and breaking the plane of the rubber on a pickoff attempt at second base, for example, should be a balk, but it is never called as such).

As for Ziggy's comment regarding runners not being able to run out of the baseline (or into fair territory, as he put it), that is false IF the fielder is trying to make a play on the ball.  In that case, the runner MUST give the defensive player an opportunity to field the ball.  The runner is allowed to travel outside the basepaths in this case.  But that's the only case where that is legal.

In response to your question about the fielder's decision to block the basepath until the last possible second, the umpire has the right to award the runner the base if he feels the fielder impeded or slowed the runner's progess AT ALL (even with no contact being made).  It's a judgement call.

[Wolverine]

Really, one of two things has to happen for intereference:
1) They must collide
2) The runner must be forced to leave the basepath.

Neither happened.  You can't call intereference on "something that might happen if nobody moves and if the baserunner doesn't get out.

And yes, once the runner's out, there can no longer be intereference.  Just like a shortstop jumping over a runner to attempt a double play.  The runner's out, so he no longer needs to worry about being in his path.

Interesting side note a catchers blocking the plate is 100% illegal

Erm.....not if he has the ball.

Incorrect.  "Obstruction" is the term used in the official rulebook, and it states: "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."  Contact does not have to be made.  It's a judgement call by the umpire.  Here's the example in the rulebook: "For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

Let me clarify my comment earlier.  The catcher can't block the plate if he doesn't have the ball.  Nor can can any defensive player at any base.  If they have the ball, then they are allowed (legally) to do so.

[Derek Bodner]

I never said what exactly the rule on obstruction was, only that in order for it to be called one of those 2 things must happen.  In fact, I even said that it would be a hard case to make, basically saying "dont' expect a call".

the only declarative statement i made on official rulings was that the catcher could block the plate if he has the ball.

The bottom line is it is a judgement call, A-rod wasn't obstructed to first base (except by the guy with the ball), and it's not illegal to just be in the base paths.

[ziggy]

As for Ziggy's comment regarding runners not being able to run out of the baseline (or into fair territory, as he put it), that is false IF the fielder is trying to make a play on the ball.  In that case, the runner MUST give the defensive player an opportunity to field the ball.  The runner is allowed to travel outside the basepaths in this case.  But that's the only case where that is legal.

 

In the case of a runner going to first he must be in the runners box, which is in FOUL territory.  The fielder cannot make a play on a "ground ball" in the box, because he is in foul territory so the runner cannot interfere with him, because the fielders is making a play on a foul ball.  If the runner was in fair territory and hit the fielder that would be interferance, because a runner to first MUST be in foul territory.

[Reality]

Reality,

It is true that catchers, according to the official rulebook of MLB, CANNOT block home.  That is the case for ANY defensive player at ANY base.  It has simply been ignored by umpires through the years, just one of the many "unofficial" rules umpires have made up and are now accepted as legal (spinning and breaking the plane of the rubber on a pickoff attempt at second base, for example, should be a balk, but it is never called as such).


In response to your question about the fielder's decision to block the basepath until the last possible second, the umpire has the right to award the runner the base if he feels the fielder impeded or slowed the runner's progess AT ALL (even with no contact being made).  It's a judgement call.

WOW.  Do you guys not feel Mientkiewicz "obstructed" as MLB defines "obstruction" as Wolverine posted?
Moot point as ARod chose to swipe but if instead ARod motors fwd sans swipe its obstruction IMO.

Side point ARod runs on the infield grass all the way up until Arroyo tags at him.
ARods foot touches dirt for the 1st time well over 1/2 way down the line.
Seems the dirt would be faster motoring then the grass.  Maybe not with the rain?
Arod running on infield grass on purpose?

If that video link doesn't work it's simply MLB.com  

[Reality]

.....it's not illegal to just be in the base paths.

Are you sure?
"just to be in the paths" when no runner is around, sure.  But if defender in any way shape or form impedes while being in path, it owtta be obstuction.  

As Wolf posted the MLB rule ""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." Contact does not have to be made. It's a judgement call by the umpire.

Wolf added "In response to your question about the fielder's decision to block the basepath until the last possible second, the umpire has the right to award the runner the base if he feels the fielder impeded or slowed the runner's progess AT ALL (even with no contact being made). It's a judgement call. "

Now as to whether an ump is ever going to make this OBSTRUCTION call, thats an interesting seperate question.


 

[Ted]

Reality, I have a question . . .

WHO THE HELL CARES?!?!

If A-Fraud hadn't swiped, Arroyo would have tagged him out before he got to first. Sure Minkiewitts was in the way, but A-Fraud would've already been out anyway. IF Arroyo would've missed the tag and IF A-Fraud had made it to first and IF . . . IF IF IF IF IF IF   :puke:  

[Reality]

Reality, I have a question . . .

WHO THE HELL CARES?!?!

 

zig bods Wolf and I care.   So do a bunch of us kicking it and watching the game.  In fact my Hooters waitress Dyna cared very much, inititating a question to me right after the play.  

You may be reading my post as it applies only to the ARod play.
I wanted to know what the rule was period.

So i dont want to go down to the bookstore and read some stuffy MLB rules book.
Instead Wolf posts and we all bond.

[Ted]

Phew, sorry. I'm eating Kung Pao right how. It had me a little fired up.