Totally agree, also can't assume every watcher knows what rules are being broken (eg what was Illegal about the pitch that hit the umpire). Title of video is Illegal moments, so I am assuming there is something not allowed in the play. To my understanding of baseball (which isn't much, I'm Australian and don't follow MLB) there is nothing wrong with the play, just the umpire being unlucky.
That very first one was NOT....ABSOLUTELY NOT....a balk. That was a violation of the "detached equipment" rule. You can't use equipment (i.e., a face mask), detached from it's normal wear on your body to make a play on a live ball.
@@skydiverclassc2031 Actually the correct signal for a balk is a "delayed dead ball" whereas the signal for detached equipment is "dead ball". Most umpires don't know the difference.
@@skydiverclassc2031 The point to the ground/catcher by the umpire is not the balk mechanic. You also don't kill play immediately for a balk, you need to let it play out. I believe if a runner successfully steals a base on a balk they don't get another base (but I could be wrong). The penalty for most defensive violations is runners advancing (since that's the only real negative the defence have), while for the offence it's a strike or an out. Sometimes you see balls awarded because of a violation by the defence (going to the mouth, and pitch clock rules come to mind) but much less common that base awards.
While you're technically correct, interference is not specific to offensive players. It also extends to catchers, umpires, any player that isn't in the game, and fans.
@@chavamitzen1894 Catchers interference is the "oddity" where it's the catcher that gets in the way of the batter swinging the bat. Interference is typically committed by the offence involving hindering or impeding the defence, while obstruction involves the defence hindering or impeding the offence. Spectator and umpire interference are similar in that they involve a spectator or umpire hindering or impeding the defence. Both interference (all types) and obstruction while some have prescribed penalties generally follow the mantra of "Nullify the act" or in other words, position runners based on what in the umpires judgement would of happened had there been no interference, in some cases that means letting the result stand. Say a runner trips over a fielder who isn't fielding the ball (Type 2 Obstruction), but they still make it in safely. You don't enforce additional penalties because the trip didn't result in an unfair advantage for the defence (didn't hinder or impede the runner enough to change the result). Alternatively, suppose the same runner trips rounding second, but then gets out halfway to home. Again it's Type 2 Obstruction so if the umps determine he wouldn't of scored anyway he's still out. Its only really in the close plays where type 2 obstruction really comes into play. You can even hear the umpire in one of the clips calling obstruction as "Thats interference" so even pro umps can't keep the two straight sometimes.
MLB interference calls are confusing. The runner has to allow defense to attempt a play, and defense can't get in the way of the runner. How does that work?
For each play where there can be a play made on the ball, the closest umpire decides which defensive player is most likely, in their opinion, to make the play (99% of the time, this is an obvious choice). That player has right of way to fielding the ball, and even if their attempt to field the batted ball gets in the way of the runner, as long as they are in the act of fielding, the runner must avoid them. Any other fielder that gets in the way of the runner is committing obstruction, and once that fielder is no longer in the process of fielding the batted ball, and does not possess the ball, they must also clear out of the way of the runner or they will be committing obstruction.
@@OngakuSensei86Even possessing the ball doesn't necessarily protect them from being called for obstruction. It's less likely since they'll likely be making a play on the runner, but still possible.
When players go out of their way in getting an obstruction/interference call, they should call the player out or the runner allowed to take the base. Ynoa was maybe a foot or two in the field of play maybe just off the base path and the player just reaches out and touches him and they call Ynoa for obstructing the runner.
The standard is "hinders or impeeds" for obstruction and I believe also interference. Sounds like a case of type 2 or type B obstruction which isn't an automatic base award like type 1 or type A. Type 2 is protection to the base which in the umpires judgement would of been safely reached without the obstruction and the ball remains live. Advancing beyond this base can be done at the runners own peril (essentially "nullify the act" and only enforced if needed). Additionally per the rule book the base path only officially exists when there's a play being made on a runner, in all other cases they are essentially free to run where they want and technically it's up to the defence to avoid them.
@@kevinadrian9366 If the clip had played out instead of having been cut off when it was, you would have heard the play-by-play commentator mention that the umpire had recently missed an obvious strike call. The battery were trying to wake up the umpire.
@@arinerm1331 Plus an earlier questionable strike three call on a Tigers' batter and ejections of the Tigers' starting catcher and manager for arguing over the call you mention above.
You have excellent videos, did your editor just had an off day? I still am a fan of your videos. Just seemed the editing was a little sloppy. But thank you for the entertainment
Many of these cuts are too quick. We can't necessarily tell what was called in each case. 1:17, for instance. Last thing we hear is "out at first", but there appears to have been obstruction on the catcher when the runner ran into his back as the pitcher went after the ball. Was that called?
I came to comments just to say that few things irritate me more than an announcer with 30 years expereince calling obstruction "interference." Since you're already here on top, I'll reply instead of posting my own. But the answer is "yes."
Or just call it offensive or defensive interference. Offensive if the offensive player interfered with the play, or defensively if the defensive player interfered.
Would be good to see some info on the why's and how's of why these plays were illegal. Some are obvious but others need some explanation and slo-mo ect. Otherwise it was an interesting video. FYI I'm an Australian with an interest in mlb so a lot of the finicky rules I'm ignorant of.
@@Rodent1970If you're talking about the Runners Lane interference ones (throws to first from the home plate area), the runner isn't protected running outside the runners lane in the last 45ft to first (supposed to be in foul territory up the first base line). He can leave the lane in the last step or two to reach the base, but if he never entered he can't leave. The throws might be deliberate but the runner also isn't where he's supposed to be and he's "in the way" so by rule you have RLI (Runners Lane Interference). Baseball interference/obstruction rules are decently complicated
I stopped watching a little over halfway through. He wouldn’t let the video clip go to the resolution to even sure what the call was in so many of these.
Should change the name of the video to “baseball in-play bloopers” because thats what this is. Because despite them being illegal, there all mostly failed plays.
I was at that Oakland vs Boston game at Fenway. That was game 3 of the 2003 ALDS. A's won the first two game of the 5 game series and gave away two runs in game 3 then lost games 4 and 5. Was the series that set up the 2003 ALCS where Grady Little did not take Pedro out of the game and he lost the lead. Yankees when on to win in game 7 with a Boone homerun but the Marlins won the World Series.
Why is a runner with his back turned away from the player throwing the ball interfering when he's just trying to get to base? That rule needs to be removed.
I honestly miss like, 80s 90s and 00s sports... back when defense mattered, when everyone wasn't soft. And Im young like Im in my 30s, not some boomer here but I understand how thing are now. Gotta protect the athletes, it makes sense but, you don't see many exciting plays like the Albert Belle one for example, guys using their body to intimidate has always been a part of the game. Yeah you're out if you do that but you should not get suspended by any means for a play like that. But nowadays you might... IDK. It's why guys like Tom Brady and Lebron James will never be among the best in their sport, they've been so heavily protected that they've had an advantage 10 times greater than say, steroids would give a player. They don't have to take any hits compared to players in previous eras like Montana Bradshaw Aikman Elway, Jordan Jabbar Bird Iverson Thomas Barkley Robinson Malone etc, even say, Kobe Bryant for example. He won his championships in seasons where you had NBA finals games being 81-76. Now? Noone plays defense, and you got 120-115 games with guys like Lebron Harden and Curry playing zero defense, standing there shooting 3's without having to drive the ball. Early Career Lebron I respected, same with Brady. Late career, not so much, just overprotected faces of the league who win scripted-fixed titles cause them winning makes the most money for each league.
@@camc9093 You must be seriously depressed and lonely to even reply. Me? I'm waiting for my beautiful fiancee to get out of the shower so I've got a minute to put you in your place. Hows that super bowl choke taste still after all these years? Gotta suck knowing the Seahawks shoulda had a dynasty. And what happened to your NBA team? Good luck with the shitty NHL team your city bought.
So.. runners getting hit by a thrown ball to first are interfering? In my world, the base runner gets the benefit of the doubt. The man has to run the baseline, it's not his fault the defender can't aim.
Here's an idea: cut down on the number of plays and let the explanations from the announcers or umpires come through. I know the rules of baseball inside and out as a former umpire with 3000 games officiated. Most people don't have that kind of knowledge.
In the very first clip, the announcers got it wrong. They said "balk. The pitcher did not come to a complete stop possibly". That is not what happened. The reason the runners were allowed to advance one base is because the catcher illegally touched the ball with his catcher's mask. That is illegal in baseball. It is explained in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ihih-Awsxqs.html
1:06 if the catcher runs into the batter, and the ball is the other direction, how is that interference? Ball is to the left side, foul, and catcher runs forward fair to make the 'interference call'.
Have you ever caught a high pop up like that? The ball does not go straight up and it does not come straight down. The batter needs to know where the catcher is and stay out of his way.
The runner's lane plays are painful to watch... we all know the rule, so until it's changed get outside the line and figure out how to step on the bag from there. This should not be difficult.
Some of these are the worst excuses of 'rules' ever. A runner running straight down the line to first base, someone behind him throws the ball directly at him, hitting him..... obstruction?
First of all, it is interference, not obstruction. The runner needs to be in the running lane to avoid interfering with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
I love this video, the plays are great but whoever set it up did a SORRY job. WAY TOO MANY plays were cut off not knowing the result. LET THE PLAY FINISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@hospedajepr I’m subscribed to SEVERAL DIFFERENT sports channels and they ALL have INTIRE clips posted in their videos without any issues! He’s the ONLY channel that does this!
@@hospedajepr That's not why or how COPYRIGHT works. Top All Sports should learn to insert some educational comments. ) > "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."
As someone who's trying to increase my knowledge of the rulebook, this could have been really interesting, but with most of the replays and commentary missing, it's too difficult to follow.
Hmmm, can someone please explain to me, why it is interference by the runner, when said runner is hit by the ball in the back while running? I mean there is no chance to avoid being hit, when they are running on their line and the catcher throws the ball to first base and hits the runner in the back?
Why they gave him 1st base is beyond me. He didn't block the runner until he had the ball in his glove. And the runner was out of the running lane, as well. Terrible call.
9:34 I think that call was kinda crap if you ask me, that was a pretty normal movement by the batter and he wasent even in the way, he didn’t slow up the catcher any and he still made a good throw so not sure why there was interference
I don’t get how Peacock can get an interference call @3:00. He’s following the baseline, and it’s not like he can tell the where the ball is coming from behind him. Is he supposed to shift over out of the way while running to first?
Tough to understand how you obstruct a runner to first base in fair territory. The runner should simply not be there, hence so many interference calls in favour of the fielding team. Some consistency here would be helpful.
I will never get who has right of way. Guy is standing on the baseline to try to catch the ball, so the runner has to go around him, but if he deviates frkm the base oath, he's out. How does that work? Why does the guy fielding the ball not have tge burden of not being on the base path?
Yeah okay Ynoa looked as if he were trying to obstruct the runner, but if the runner had been in his 3' lane as he was supposed to be, there would have been no contact. I could see "that's nothing" on that one.
The runner does not have to be in the running lane. He can run wherever he wants. The rule is if he was out of the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, he would be out. But that is not what happened in this video. Obstruction on the pitcher was the correct call.
@@alanhess9306 obstruction on the pitcher was absolutely the worst call. He fielded the ball and had it in his glove when the runner collided with him. Notice the first baseman's glove is empty?
@@MaydayAggro Watch it again and pay attention this time. The pitcher did not have the ball, F3 had the ball and the pitcher was between the runner and F3. Try again.
