Quote:
Originally posted by Ump20
I recall the 2000 World Series wherein Knoblauch had a base hit to the outfield. As he rounded first base and headed toward second he contacted first baseman Todd Zeile, a more natural third baseman. He continued to second and was out by a country mile. The first base umpire ruled obstruction and awarded second base. Some felt that Yankee coach Lee Mazzilli influenced the ump. I forget his name but I think he was either a first or second year guy.
I may be wrong but I think if I have a similar play and their is minor incidental contact, no legitimate chance for a double, the runner may have altered his path to initiate the contact, and he returns to first base -- I have nothing.
Your thoughts on this particular play in the Series and my theoretical play, which is somewhat different in terms
|
The only INITIAL judgement with Obstruction is
did the fielder impede the runner's legitimate attempt to advance. That applies whether you are talking Type A (play on the obstructed runner) or Type B (no play on the obstructed runner) Obstruction. The fielder's INTENT is irrelevant. That pivotal issue has 2 parts - (a) was the runner impeded and (b) was he making a legitimate attempt to advance. The distance a runner is impeded in his advance isn't an issue for the INITIAL decision. Obstruction is an illegal act and carries a penalty of at least the base for which the runner was trying at the time of the obstruction,
even for Type B Obstruction.
The fact in the Knoblauch/Zeile incident is that if they fielded the ball to 2nd base to get Knoblauch "by a mile", then it was TYPE A Obstruction anyway, and the penalty is always the next base after the point of obstruction. The second case sounds like it was Type B Obstruction with no legitimate attempt to advance, and the penalty is the base for which the runner was trying at the time of obstruction. That was probably still 1st base, even though he had rounded it when obstructed. If the umpire had adjudged there was a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd base in the second case, or that a play was being made on that runner at the time, then that runner would also have been entitled to 2nd base, irrespective of his return to 1st base. Type B obstruction will ALWAYS result in the runner being awarded at least the base for which he was legitimately trying at the time of the obstruction. The award ONLY becomes a feet and inches judgement AFTER the initially protected base has been passed.
Jim, none of this has ANYTHING to do with INTENT on obstruction
on the part of the fielder, so why raise it? Are you suggesting that the official has to judge the runner's INTENT in deciding obstruction? If so, the only INTENT the runner has to show is a legitimate attempt to advance. A runner going out of his way to bump into a fielder is hardly showing a legitimate attempt to advance.
Cheers,