[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

I can be persuaded in either direction, but I'm tending now to believe it is a trainwreck. After all, that often happens between BR and F3 in the vicinity of first. Why should F4 be any different?

I look forward to other replies.

Of course the difference between a trainwreck with BR and the F4 running to backup a throw vs. a trainwreck between F3 and BR is that F3 is attempting to glove a ball that has been thrown to him. There is a degree of immunity provided F3 in that instance due to that factor. F4, in the situation described, is not attempting to glove a thrown ball and qualifies for no such immunity from obstruction.

Originally posted by Carl Childress

So, thinking again, I'd say the BR cannot be obstructed unless he makes an effort to advance PRIOR to the obstruction. (Trick plays would abound if he could draw a base AFTER some fielder bumped him slightly.)

I suppose the question here is whether BR is advancing. He was advancing to 1st, we all know that. He continued running 10-15 ft. before being contacted. That is but a few steps while running. Is he still advancing? He's still moving forward, right, in HIS basepath (as defined by the rules). I would think so until such time as he stops and freely retreats to 1st base as allowed per rule. We have all seen situations where an overthrown ball allows BR to turn and continue to 2nd base after BR has overrun 1st base, haven't we. BR, in the situation under discussion, was not provided that opportunity here because of F4's obstruction. Keep in mind, it is F4's responsibility to avoid BR, not the other way around.
F4, IMO, has obstructed BR.

Next judgement that comes into play is whether the ump judges BR would have attempted advancement toward 2nd base had it not been for the obstruction. I cite the following plays from JEA:

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field, slows down as the right fielder prepares to throw the ball into 2nd base, and then bumps into the 1st baseman who is not paying attention to the runner while the throw is going to 2nd .
Ruling: Since the runner was not making a legitimate effort to advance to second, this should not be considered type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The obstruction should be signaled and then enforced under the penalty provided by 7.0(b)... umpire's judgment.

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field. The 1st baseman is not paying attention and obstructs the B-R as he rounds 1st. In the umpire’s judgment, the B-R was going to try for 2nd. The throw to second is perfect and, most likely, the B-R would have been put out.
Ruling: Regardless of the B-R's chances to reach 2nd safely, the defensive team is obligated to allow unimpeded progress on the base path. In this case, the 1st baseman is guilty of type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The B-R is awarded 2nd (at least one base)...the penalty provided under 7.06(a).

So, the question is really rather the official calling the play thought the runner may continue to 2nd base. Certainly that would be based on the location of the ball after the overthrow, the location of the fielder's chasing the errant throw, and perhaps even the speed of the runner (a bull vs. a jackrabbit).

IMO, if I feel certain either way in this part of the judgement as to whether or not BR would have attempted advance to 2nd base, the call is then very easy to make. However, if I am uncertain as to whether I think the runner may have gone, then I favor the offense providing them the benefit of any doubt. They have done nothing wrong in this play to come out on the short end of the call. The defense has---they tripped up the BR when they were responsible to avoid him. The defense erred in their performance and were the potential violators of the rule. The defense will not receive any benefit of the doubt from me.

Bottom line in this situation, if I judge BR would possibly have broken for 2nd had it not been for the obstruction, I am awarding him 2nd base under rule 7.06(a).

Just my opinion,

Freix