Type A/B obs

[scyguy]

can someone help me distinguish the difference between the two. Give me FED references, explain difference in penalities, live/dead ball, etc.

[LDUB]

In FED, there is no A/B obstruction. All obstruction is a delayed dead ball, with a minimum award of one base.

[scyguy]

good, I had seen a reference to the two types and it made me wonder. Okay, FED game, one out, ball hit to RF, R1 is obstructed by SS after touching second. As BU I state obstruction. Play is made on R1 sliding into third. 3B tags R1 before he reaches base, then zips throw to 2B trying to get BR. R1 thinking he is out gets up and returns to dugout. Throw to second is high and goes into RF. BR gets up and runs to 3B which he reaches safely. Now, what do you do with R1? Do you state that with obstruction he was protected to 3B, so he was not out, and assume that he would of scored since BR was able to advance to 3B?

My dilemna is when we have a delayed dead ball, runner is advancing, then another play is made on a second runner. Do you have to verbalize that the protected runner is safe and at the same time get in a position to make a call on the second runner?

[Tim C]

scyguy notes:

" . . . one out, ball hit to RF, R1 is obstructed by SS after touching second. As BU I state obstruction. Play is made on R1 sliding into third. 3B tags R1 before he reaches base, then zips throw to 2B trying to get BR. R1 thinking he is out gets up and returns to dugout. Throw to second is high and goes into RF. BR gets up and runs to 3B which he reaches safely. Now, what do you do with R1? Do you state that with obstruction he was protected to 3B, so he was not out, and assume that he would of scored since BR was able to advance to 3B?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

If I knew umpiring was this hard I would have quit 25 years ago.

[scyguy]

true, but this could happen. If as R1 slides into 3rd I attempt to explain that the runner is safe, I will have a difficult time making the anticipated call at third. Let's say as BU you state R1 is safe (thinking you did it loud enough for everyone to hear) and switch your focus to 2B for play on BR, then see R1 enter dugout as you follow BR into third, call time when the smoke clears, confer with PU to make sure R1 did not advance home but went directly to dugout. After all this, do we call R1 out for vacating his base or assume he did not hear my safe call and credit him with home?

[mcrowder]

When will FED get those rules published on line ... I was going to post the relevant rule here, word for word, but don't have my book here at work.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
Do you have to verbalize that the protected runner is safe and at the same time get in a position to make a call on the second runner?

How is this any different than making *any* call and getting in position for another? The movement you describe would happen whether or not obstruction was part of the play.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by mcrowder
When will FED get those rules published on line ... I was going to post the relevant rule here, word for word, but don't have my book here at work.

Never. If they do, no one will buy their books.

[scyguy]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

How is this any different than making *any* call and getting in position for another? The movement you describe would happen whether or not obstruction was part of the play.

The difference is a verbal indication at 3B. My question is not centered around position, but informing runner at third that he is not out. But I thought about this last night. Doesn't the 3B coach need to understand the rules? If he cannot inform his runner to stay on base, and subsuquency advance, then what kind of coach is he? If I indicate obs when contact occurs, then the coach should know the rule. If runner leaves 3B and returns to dugout, we have an out for abandonment.

By the way, the rule for abandonment is 8-4-2p, if that is what you were refering to.

[Edited by scyguy on Mar 11th, 2005 at 08:50 AM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy

The difference is a verbal indication at 3B. My question is not centered around position, but informing runner at third that he is not out. But I thought about this last night. Doesn't the 3B coach need to understand the rules? If he cannot inform his runner to stay on base, and subsuquency advance, then what kind of coach is he? If I indicate obs when contact occurs, then the coach should know the rule. If runner leaves 3B and returns to dugout, we have an out for abandonment.

By the way, the rule for abandonment is 8-4-2p, if that is what you were refering to.

[Edited by scyguy on Mar 11th, 2005 at 08:50 AM]

Don't have my book in front of me , but read Obstruction definition...2-22,(?). I think it talks about the umpire having the authority to decide where everyone is to end up , at the end of playing action. I would recommend forgetting about "abandonment" here, unless you are 100% sure you clearly indicated your call and intentions. You are the one that has to make it clear and if not, you have the authority to rectify the situation at the end of playing action. Forget about wether there was a coach or not.

I don't think awarding R1 home in this case is out of the question. Make sure you take note if the runner comes back and tags the plate though.

[David B]

Originally posted by scyguy

The difference is a verbal indication at 3B. My question is not centered around position, but informing runner at third that he is not out. But I thought about this last night. Doesn't the 3B coach need to understand the rules? If he cannot inform his runner to stay on base, and subsuquency advance, then what kind of coach is he? If I indicate obs when contact occurs, then the coach should know the rule. If runner leaves 3B and returns to dugout, we have an out for abandonment.

By the way, the rule for abandonment is 8-4-2p, if that is what you were refering to.

[Edited by scyguy on Mar 11th, 2005 at 08:50 AM]

Since this is FED, you could call time and make the award. When the tag is applied, call time and say obstruction, runner is safe and make the safe call.

Then nothing else can happen. Keeps it simple. This is an award in FED, so that would keep the BR at first.

If by chance you did let the play happen without calling time and R3 wanders off, you have a mess, but after the play, I would simply fix it, don't have my book but FED gives the umpire the right to rectify a situation where the umpire puts a player at a disadvantage. Go back put R1 on third via obstruction, and BR would be a 2nd since he was not put out at that base.

Thanks
David

[scyguy]

Originally posted by jicecone

Don't have my book in front of me , but read Obstruction definition...2-22,(?). I think it talks about the umpire having the authority to decide where everyone is to end up , at the end of playing action. I would recommend forgetting about "abandonment" here, unless you are 100% sure you clearly indicated your call and intentions. You are the one that has to make it clear and if not, you have the authority to rectify the situation at the end of playing action. Forget about wether there was a coach or not.

I don't think awarding R1 home in this case is out of the question. Make sure you take note if the runner comes back and tags the plate though.

good point, 2-22-1 does have that stipulation, but if runner is in the dugout when you kill play you are not going to instruct him to come back out and touch home. My initial thought on this situation would be to grant the run (even if he did not touch home) based on 2-22-1. This action would seem to be appropriate. But a case could be made for abandonment.

At what point do we put some of the responsiblity on the coaches? Do they understand obs? If not, why aren't they seeking understanding?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy

good point, 2-22-1 does have that stipulation, but if runner is in the dugout when you kill play you are not going to instruct him to come back out and touch home. My initial thought on this situation would be to grant the run (even if he did not touch home) based on 2-22-1. This action would seem to be appropriate. But a case could be made for abandonment.

At what point do we put some of the responsiblity on the coaches? Do they understand obs? If not, why aren't they seeking understanding?

Be careful, if the runner does not touch, the defense may appeal.

I believe that good coaches no more about the rules than given credit for. We are their to assure compliance with the rules as fairly as possible. They are there to win the game. Unfortunately, there are many times that winning takes precedence over everthing else.

[David B]

Originally posted by scyguy

good point, 2-22-1 does have that stipulation, but if runner is in the dugout when you kill play you are not going to instruct him to come back out and touch home. My initial thought on this situation would be to grant the run (even if he did not touch home) based on 2-22-1. This action would seem to be appropriate. But a case could be made for abandonment.

At what point do we put some of the responsiblity on the coaches? Do they understand obs? If not, why aren't they seeking understanding?

JUst curious, under what rule are you going to grant the runner home?

He was obstructed going to third, that's the base he's going to get under FED rules.

This is not that hard of a play, or maybe I'm just missing something here.

thanks
David

[jicecone]

David,

In accordance with 8-3-2, I believe that is the "minimum" award.