Hello all!
There has been a pretty lively debate taking place on the McGriff's message board regarding verbal obstruction.
The issue being debated is whether or not middle infielders yelling "Back,Back" convincing a runner to dive back to the bag and altering the course of the play is to be called verbal obstruction.
As I have said before, this past season was my first working FED games, so I am still diligently trying to learn all of the NFHS nuances regarding their many different rules interpretations. I want to be certain that if faced with this, I will call or not call it by what the existing standard is for the experienced members of this forum.
I did send an e-mail to Kyle McNeely of the ABUA to see what he thought. After I received his reply, I posted it at McGriffs and still, there appears to be a huge debate over whether or not it should be called.
This was Mr. McNeely's reply:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
Tim, thanks for the question. Hope your spring and summer seasons have gone well. Pretty much wound down here.
I am not surprised that there exists a high level of debate on this. Obstruction as a topic, for some reason, tends to be on a national basis, misunderstood and misapplied.
As you are well aware, Rule 2-22-2 tells us that obstruction can verbal and physical, intentional and unintentional. An additional key phrase in that definition deals with obstruction being an act that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play. This means that the obstruction did something; caused something else to happen.
So, in reality we do not handle verbal obstruction any differently than we would a physical act. If it hindered a runner or changed the "pattern of play" we would enforce the penalty. What is and is not obstruction then lies with the umpire. That is the basis of your discussion.
We know that many times, on the batter-runner rounding first following a base hit single to the outfield, he may run into the first baseman who is standing on the base or near it in the basepath. Most of the time, that is not obstruction as the batter-runner was not going to second anyway, he was just rounding first and going to return there. But, let's say the ball gets through the outfielder or the outfielder kicks it around, then the same act now might be obstruction as it did hinder the runner or changed the play. Before it did nothing, now it had an impact. Same act, but one is obstruction and one is not.
So, applying this train of thought to the verbal act in question, we have 2 approved rulings which provide some guidance.
The first one is from 1993:
PLAY: With R1 on second, F5 yells, "Back! Back!" R1 thinks the instructions have come from his third base coach. R1 (a) does not return or (b) is thrown out at home on B2' after first starting back to second. R1's coach claims F5 should be called for obstruction because he hindered R1. F5's coach contends that this is just part of baseball. RULING: Anytime a fielder hinders a runner, obstruction should be called. In (a), because R1 was not hindered, there is no obstruction. In (b), had R1 not attempted to return, he may not have been put out at the plate. Therefore, F5 is guilty of obstruction.
The second approved ruling is from 1997:
PLAY: With R1 on second base, F6 yells "back, back, back!" as F1 starts his pitch. R1 returns to second base, thinking he was following the commands of his base coach. B2 (a) does not hit the ball, or (b) hits the ball.
RULING: In (a) and (b), verbal obstruction shall be called. The umpire shall award R1 the base he would have reached (a minimum of one base), had there not been obstruction.
In a way, both are saying the same thing, and the same thing on any obstruction. If the act hindered or changed the play, obstruction should be called. The 1993 ruling is obvious, but to some the 1997 ruling might be debatable.
What is being said here, is in both cases, the runner went back to second when he ordinarily would not have, hence the pattern of play was changed (as well as some safety factor bearing on it as well). Had the runner not gone back, the mere fact the defensive player said "back, back" would not have been obstruction. When it influenced the runner it became obstruction. In truth, in the past, even when a runner went back to second (nothing else happened) I have simply told the defensive player to stop as next time I will rule obstruction. If they do it again, I rule it. Certainly, if something happened I would rule obstruction.
This is a kinda of long winded response, and I hope it helps. Let me know if I didn't clear the debate up.
Kyle
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________
If you don't mind, could you let me know what you guy's think about it?
Thank's,
Tim.
|