Was A.J. Pollock guilty of a baseball 'flop' in crucial obstruction play? Justin Verlander thinks so
The Diamondbacks won a tight one on Sunday against the Astros, but it was not without controversy
By
Dayn Perry
•
2 min read
After winning their Sunday rubber match against the world-champion Astros (ARI 3, HOU 1), the Diamondbacks moved to an NL-best 23-11 and still haven't lost a series in 2018. That said, the win over Houston was not without some controversy.
In the sixth with one out, Houston co-ace Justin Verlander -- staked to a 1-0 lead -- was pretty well cruising, but then D-Backs fly-catcher A.J. Pollock ripped an RBI triple to deep left-center. That's when things got complicated.
Go here to see video of a key upon-review obstruction call against Astros third baseman Alex Bregman. It was a call that awarded home plate to Pollock and put the D-Backs on top for good. This also meant that Verlander would be tagged with his first loss of the season. Perhaps his mood was soured when he made this postgame comment about the obstruction call against Bregman ...
Justin Verlander: “Pollock sold it pretty good. You see this in basketball all the time. Can you call it a flop in baseball? I don’t know. He knows the game, he got the call.”
— Chandler Rome (@Chandler_Rome) May 6, 2018
Baseball flop? This, people, is a baseball flop ...
Anyhow, to this writer's eyes it looked like genuine obstruction, and the plate ump obviously agreed. Verlander, though, has never been tentative with his grievances, whether it's rules interpretations or inconsiderate attempts by the opposition to win baseball games.
If you're interested, here's the relevant excerpt of the obstruction 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.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. 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.
The guess here is that the call was made because Bregman appeared to get in the way of Pollock's path home-ward after the ball had gotten past him (see the note about "in the act of fielding a ball" above). The following screencaps took place after the ball had sailed past Bregman, and as such he was not in the act of fielding the ball during these instances ...
And that's why Pollock was ruled safe at the plate upon review. Also, per the rules it doesn't matter whether Bregman intentionally obstructed Pollock. Intent doesn't matter for these purposes. Verlander may not like it, but it looks like a defensible call. If it helps (note: it probably does not), Pollock knocked in another run in the eighth, so the disputed Bregman call wound up not providing the exact margin of defeat for Houston.
