The Dodgers beat the Mets 7-5 in 13 innings on May 23, 2025 when third base umpire Tripp Gibson, gave a clinic on the topic of visual obstruction by making two such calls. The last time I saw such a call made was in 2004.

In the bottom of the fourth inning, Pete Alonso was batting with Starling Marte on third and one out. Alonso flied out to Teoscar Hernández in right field. Marte tagged up and was gunned down at the plate on a great throw by Hernández. Plate ump Ryan Blakney made the call. But the out was nullified because third base umpire Tripp Gibson ruled that Dodgers’ third baseman Max Muncy had impeded Marte’s view of the catch and called visual obstruction on Muncy. The umpires judged that the obstruction affected the outcome of the close play at the plate and protected Marte.

Ruleball Comments

• 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 a runner. A runner’s progress can be impeded while running or standing on a base. Fielder’s must be aware of this.
• Contact and intent of the fielder is not necessary for the call to be made.
• Gibson judged that Muncy obstructed the view of Marte as Hernández was about to make the catch.
• In tag-up situations, it’s critical for the runner to know that he can release the moment the fielder makes contact with the ball.
• The fielder does not have to show possession of the ball and make the catch for the runner to disengage the base on a tag-up.
• Because the runner is often not in a position to see the initial ball contact with the outfielder, the base coach must get himself in position to see the contact and yell “Go” to the runner. The coach can be in fair or foul territory to get a good look at the point when the ball makes contact with the fielder’s glove. The coach must be sure not to interfere with the play.
• Fielders have been known to visually obstruct runners intentionally or unintentionally to prevent the runner from getting a proper jump on the tag-up. But the call is seldom made. Gibson’s ruling might be a wake-up call.
• This is a Type 2 obstruction because there was no play being directly on Marte at the time of the obstruction. In the above play, if Marte was easily thrown out by several feet, the out would remain. Because this was a close play at the plate, the umpires protected Marte and allowed him to score.
• In the 13th inning, Mets’ third baseman Brett Baty was also called for visual obstruction. The Dodgers had Hernández on third and Hyeseong Kim on first and no outs when Andy Pages flied to right. Hernández tagged-up and scored. Kim was doubled-up at first base. He originally was called safe, but the safe call was challenged by Mets’ manager Carlos Mendoza and the call was reversed. The Mets had executed a double play but Hernández scored.
• If you look at the play, you will see Gibson point to the obstruction. When Type 2 is called, the umpire points to the obstruction and yells “That’s obstruction” but keeps the ball alive. Because Hernández scored without a play there was no need to protect him.
• It would have been interesting if there was one out and Pages flied to right field and the overturned third out was at first base. This would have been a “Time Play.” If the safe call at first base was reversed to an out call, the umpires would have to determine whether or not Hernández would have crossed the plate before the third out was recorded had there been no obstruction.

Umps Misinterpret Type1 or Type 2 Visual Obstruction Call

The only time I ever saw the rule enforced was on August 6, 2004, at the Trop where the then Tampa Bay Devil Rays hosted the Seattle Mariners.
Unfortunately, the rule was improperly enforced.

Here’s what happened. The Devil Rays had Rocco Baldelli on first, Aubrey Huff on second and Carl Crawford on third and one out in the bottom of the tenth inning with the score tied, 1-1, when Tino Martinez, facing Clint Nageotte, lofted a fly to short left field that was handled by Raúl Ibañez. On the play, Mariners’ third baseman Willie Bloomquist went out as a cutoff man. Shortstop José López kept his back to the outfield and got funky when he leaned the upper part of his body into Crawford’s line of vision while looking at the plate.

Crawford bluffed a break for home and was trotting back to third as Ibañez’s perfect throw reached Mariners’ catcher Miguel Olivo. It appeared that the game would continue with two outs and the bases loaded.

Nope.

Third base umpire Paul Emmel ruled that López got a little bit too cute and intentionally obstructed the vision of Crawford who was trying to pick up the flight of the ball to prepare his tag-up. Crawford was incorrectly awarded home, and the game ended with the Devil Rays winning, 2-1.

Mariners’ pilot Bob Melvin was justifiably enraged by the call. “That was the worst call I’ve ever seen,” he said in a story written by John Hickey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Emmel’s a good umpire. But it was a horrible call,” said Melvin who didn’t protest the game because he was told it was a judgment call. Crew chief Joe West defended the call.

Ruleball Comments

• The umpires failed to invoke the proper obstruction rule. They incorrectly ruled Type 1 rather than Type 2. As in the Muncy play above, this was a Type 2 obstruction, but the umpires incorrectly treated it as a Type 1 by giving the runner on third home. When Type 1 is called the runner is awarded the next base after the last base he legally touched. The automatic base award gave the Devil Rays a 2-1 win.
• Type 2 should have been called because there was no play being directly made on Crawford when the obstruction occurred. The ball was headed to the plate while Crawford was returning to third base.
• The ball should have been kept alive without penalty and the game continued with the bases loaded and two out. The interpretation of that exact play is supported in the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual.
• If Type 2 was ruled and Crawford was an easy out at the plate, the out would stand. If Crawford was out on a bang-bang play, the umps
  would take into account the effect of the López obstruction and protect Crawford and allow him to score just as they did with Marte in the Mets-Dodgers game.
• If this should happen in a game under present protocol, the victimized manager should ask for a RULES CHECK and argue the misinterpretation of the obstruction rule.

Rich Marazzi

Rules consultant/analyst: Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Red Sox, Rangers, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox, Yankees, YES, and Chicago Sports Network