[umpjim]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

It sort of does sound like obstruction, except the runner had a clear and direct path back to the base, and successfully took it. Also, obstruction was never signaled, prior to or after the falling onto the runner portion of the play. That could be an omission, but why the award of second? There was no effort to advance, and given the ball was never loose, hard to envision a scenario where a successful advance to second would ensue absent a errant throw, and NCAA rules do not mandate a forward award.

Obstruction would theoretically occur an instant after the runner was forced off the base, and contact continued, and that might be the ruling that is the answer to my original question, what rule to enforce in the event of a force off? Base awarded is then a judgement call, but in a code lacking a requirement of a forward award, which most BB & SB codes do not include, while probably an effective punitive measure to discourage a repeat performance, it still strains credibility to suggest the runner would have advanced absent the obstruction in a scenario where the runner had returned and was attempting to stay on the base returned to.

I'm guessing but if F3 blocked the base with any part of his body as the ball and runner were on the way the ump could rule Obstruction and an immediate dead ball. The throw then could have taken F3 out of his blocking attempt, allowing the runner access and causing F3 to become unbalanced. The 1BC probably was pointing at the initial block attempt, usually the kneeling of one lower leg accross the access to the bag.