[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

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,

Actually, what I believe I was considering is whether or not the player makes a legitimate attempt to advance. I realize Knoblauch is protected into second and it has nothing to do with the closeness of the play. What I was thinking might be intelligent for the batter-runner is to advance to second once there is any contact. Does this not make obvious the intent? In other words if I am Knoblauch in that case and considering his was impeded by Zeile only minimally (enough to be obstruction but not to cause any real delay in advancing to second)wouldn't I be smart to continue to second and in essence force the umpire to make the call thereby getting an extra base I never would have attempted not gotten if there had been no obstruction? Jim/NY