Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
In explaining 7.06(b) J/R states...
"When there is obstruction and no concurrent play on the obstructed runner (other than the BR before first base with a batter ball remaining in the infield), the ball remains live and the umpire must IMMEDIATELY (my emphasis) decide what base the runner would have acquired (or returned to safely) had the obstruction not occured. He then protects the runner to that base."
Furthermore, "An umpire may have to consider action occurring after obstruction in determining a runner's award or protection (or neither) An obstructed runner's protection or award can be revised each time something happens that would change the award or protection."
|
I think the Jaksa Roder Manual over-emphasizes the "necessity" to decide on an obstructed runner's protection "immediately." For Type B obstruction, all that is really necessary at the moment of the obstruction is for the umpire to note the severity of the obstruction - i.e., what did he lose by being obstructed? A step? 5 steps? Then when a play is ultimately made on the runner, the decision to be made is, simply, did the obstruction impact the outcome of the play? If the runner was thrown out by 20 feet, then his being obstructed by a step or two did not materially affect the play, and the out would stand. Conversely, a runner put out on a pretty close play at an advance base should be given the benefit of the doubt and awarded that base due to the previously noted obstruction violation.
A legend-in-his-own-mind Internet umpire from awhile back used to make quite a fuss over this concept of
immediately protecting a runner to a base, and that base was ALWAYS at least one base beyond the point of obstruction if he was
legitimately advancing at the time of the obstruction because obstruction must always be penalized despite the specific wording of the rule that says it need only be "nullified," but you could always use "post obstruction evidence" to revise your protection if it became necessary. Yada yada yada. His theories on obstruction caught on with a few other big dogs of the boards (at the time) and who knows how many innocent readers were erroneously swayed to buy into those now discredited interpretations.
Correctly interpreting and applying the obstruction rules is an exercise in seeing a horse, not a zebra, and keeping things simple and in accord with the doctrine of common sense and fair play. While Jaksa/Roder is a valuable reference for many rule interpretations, a far better example of how to apply the obstruction rule can be found in the PBUC Manual, which contains this play and ruling:
Play: Batter-runner hits a fair ball down the right field line and is obstructed in rounding first base. At the moment the obstruction occurs, right fielder has not yet fielded the ball, and it appears at that moment that the batter-runner will end up with a stand-up double. However; as play proceeds, ball gets by the right fielder; and batter-runner continues on to third. Batter-runner is then thrown out at third base on a very close play.
Ruling: Since it is permissible for the umpire to consider the position of the runner; ball, and fielder at the moment the obstruction occurs, the umpire may initially plan on "protecting" the batter-runner as far as second base. However; as play continued, it became apparent that had the batter-runner not been obstructed in rounding first base, he would have reached third safely Therefore, the moment the batter-runner is tagged out at third base, "Time" is called and batterrunner is awarded third on the obstruction. This decision is made on the principle that the umpire, in making awards on this type of obstruction, shall allow play to continue until no further action is possible and then shall make awards-if any-that will nullify the obstruction. In this example, if the umpire felt that the obstruction had no bearing on the fact that the batterrunner was thrown out at third, the out would stand.