OBS/INT or none?

[steveshane67]

This thread is mainly aimed at mbyron in regard to the double play thread, but anyone who believes the runner is liable to be put out after being knocked off the base can answer too.

Can you please answer my 2 previous questions along with a new one? Ill repeat them for you so you dont have to back track

QUESTION #1
What if the SS lowers his shoulder or puts his hands up in a "push up" like position, do you still have non-obstruction on the SS?

QUESTION #2
Is there a difference between blatant pushing or blatant shouldering or subtle forearm shove?

Originally Posted by mbyron

The only thing you've added to the discussion (beyond a personal remark about me) is your opinion that you could knock a runner off the base while watching the ball. Maybe you could, if the ball were high enough and the runner weren't paying attention. So?

QUESTION #3
does it matter at all if the runner is paying attention [to the SS] or not? Lets take it to an extreme, say the runner thought he called time to tie his shoes, but the ump never granted it, the play occurs, and he is bending over oblivious to everything.

Thanks

[LMan]

I haven't read about #1 and #2, but if a runner thinks he's called time, doesn't verify it w the umpire, and then 'checks out' to tie his shoe, he's put himself in dire peril.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by LMan

I haven't read about #1 and #2, but if a runner thinks he's called time, doesn't verify it w the umpire, and then 'checks out' to tie his shoe, he's put himself in dire peril.

just read the first page of the double play thread and everything will make sense to you

[SanDiegoSteve]

Let me be crystal clear:

If F6 clearly accidentally knocks a runner who is not even paying attention off the base, then that runner is liable to be called out if tagged. Nobody is disputing this.

If F6 clearly intentionally knocks a runner off the base, the runner is not liable to be called out. Nobody is disputing this.

Argument over.

[mbyron]

Question 1: Not OBS, since the fielder is not hindering the runner's attempt to advance. But it might be malicious contact, and if I judge it to be intentional it won't result in an out.

Question 2:Yes, one is blatant and the other is subtle.

Question 3: Yes, it matters whether the runner is paying attention to whether time has actually been called.

Other than that, I think SDS nailed it.

[Paul L]

#1: If, in my judgment, F6's lowered shoulder or two-hand push is flagrant and violent (e.g., obviously aggressive and not just self-protective) and it results in R2 losing contact with his base through no action of his own, then I would call obstruction and protect the runner back to the base.

Obstruction is defined as "impeding the progress" of a runner and I feel a bit out on a limb in saying that a runner not attempting to advance or return to a base has his progress impeded when a fielder intentionally causes him to lose contact with the base. I would argue that baserunning includes maintaining contact with the base when a fielder with the ball is within reach. And a fielder intentionally pushing a runner off base, exposing him to being tagged out, impedes the runner's progress toward eventually crossing home. Perhaps this is more an interpretation that fleshes out the skeleton of the written rules.

#2: As mbyron says, yes, they are different, but not necessarily distinguishable. Blatant probably is flagrant, but subtle could be too.

#3: A runner tying his shoes during live ball will get less protection than a runner tracking a fly ball. A runner who moves into the fielder's path while maintaining contact with the base while not noticing F6 because he is tracking the ball will get more protection than if he was aware of F6's path and could have avoided or reduced contact. And if the runner's movement is judged to be intentional, then maybe interference and two outs. In short, there are many variables happening at the same time that contribute to the umpire's call. HTBT.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

This thread is mainly aimed at mbyron in regard to the double play thread, but anyone who believes the runner is liable to be put out after being knocked off the base can answer too.

Can you please answer my 2 previous questions along with a new one? Ill repeat them for you so you dont have to back track

QUESTION #1
What if the SS lowers his shoulder or puts his hands up in a "push up" like position, do you still have non-obstruction on the SS?

QUESTION #2
Is there a difference between blatant pushing or blatant shouldering or subtle forearm shove?



QUESTION #3
does it matter at all if the runner is paying attention [to the SS] or not? Lets take it to an extreme, say the runner thought he called time to tie his shoes, but the ump never granted it, the play occurs, and he is bending over oblivious to everything.

Thanks

Oops wrong thread, go back to the other one if you want my comment..

[steveshane67]

Im still getting conflicting opinions mainly from SDS and mbyron

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Let me be crystal clear:

If F6 clearly accidentally knocks a runner who is not even paying attention off the base, then that runner is liable to be called out if tagged. Nobody is disputing this.

If F6 clearly intentionally knocks a runner off the base, the runner is not liable to be called out. Nobody is disputing this.

Argument over.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Question 1: Not OBS, since the fielder is not hindering the runner's attempt to advance. But it might be malicious contact, and if I judge it to be intentional it won't result in an out.

Question 2:Yes, one is blatant and the other is subtle.

Question 3: Yes, it matters whether the runner is paying attention to whether time has actually been called.

Other than that, I think SDS nailed it.

I dont know how one [mbyron] can say a SS who is lowering his shoulder or "pushing" the runner would not be intentional. Who fields a pop up in these 2 manners????

Originally Posted by mbyron

There is no rule that protects a runner who is bumped off the base by incidental contact. At lower levels you might do that, but not HS or above.

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. I don't think you know what 'incidental contact' means. Contact is incidental when it is not illegal. Did we have OBS by F6? No, since he's fielding a batted ball. Did we have INT by R2? No, since he's entitled to remain on the base. Did we have any other illegal act by either player? No, they were doing what they were supposed to do. But we did have a collision, and no matter how forceful it was, if it was not illegal, it was incidental.

So mybron is saying that as long as the SS didnt obstruct with the runner (by his defintion anything besides going out of the SS way to knock the runner of the base is not OBS) the runner is liable to be put out.

I was just trying to figure out whats the limit of physical contact that the SS can get away with.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Paul L

#3: A runner tying his shoes during live ball will get less protection than a runner tracking a fly ball. A runner who moves into the fielder's path while maintaining contact with the base while not noticing F6 because he is tracking the ball will get more protection than if he was aware of F6's path and could have avoided or reduced contact. And if the runner's movement is judged to be intentional, then maybe interference and two outs. In short, there are many variables happening at the same time that contribute to the umpire's call. HTBT.

How can a runner whos tying his shoes act in any manner thats considered intentional, hes tying his shoes not paying attention to anything!!!

maybe theres a different rule that applies here that im not aware of that someone could be so kind as to set the record straight.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

How can a runner whos tying his shoes act in any manner thats considered intentional, hes tying his shoes not paying attention to anything!!!

maybe theres a different rule that applies here that im not aware of that someone could be so kind as to set the record straight.

Haven't you ever heard of the old "tying the shoes" ploy used by base runners to intentionally interfere with a play? Jeez, I thought everyone knew that! Runners always stop in the middle of playing action to tie their shoes. Where have you been?