[devilsadvocate]

I've got a couple of comments that will basically say, "You are mistaken, sir!" Now, I don't actually know if I'm correct, but this is a discussion board.....

"2. If the runner is obstructed while making a legitimate attempt to get to a base (whether advancing or returning) an award is always in order. The awarded base is always the one toward which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction." Not necessarily. With Type A obstruction the runner is awarded at least one base beyond, even if he was returning to a base, not advancing. However, with Type B obstruction a runner may be making a legitimate attempt to get to a base and still not be awarded a base, even after obstruction. It is a judgement call by the umpire as to what to award the runner. A super slow runner may be obstructed while making a legitimate attempt to advance to a base, and the umpire say "This kid is so slow that the obstrution had no impact on the outcome of the play". So, a legitimate attempt is not an "automatic" award. Being obstucted while a play is being made on the runner is "time" then an automatic award. This would also apply to Example #2.

"4. So, to answer the following question: Can a Type B obstructed runner be thrown out between the bases where the original obstruction occurred?" Answer: NO!? However, the awarded base has nothing to do with which base the runner is ultimately thrown out at. Rather, the awarded base is that base to which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction." Answer: YES! Let's say B1 rounds first, and is slightly obstucted. You signal obstruction. This is Type B obstuction because no play is being made on the obstructed runner. As he continues to second, he hears his coach say "Go back!". He heads back to first. The throw then comes in to F4, who then throws the ball to F1, and get B1 in a rundown. Unless B1 is obstructed in the rundown, you're call is based on your judgement of the obstruction on B1 and the actions of B1 after the obstruction. Remember, he was headed for second. He is that super slow player. You may have not protected him to second. But let's say you did. He's ten feet from the base you have protected him to, and he suddenly turns around and heads back to first. There was no play being made on him, just bad coaching. An umpire might to himself "I protected him to second, but his decision to come back to first (similar to a player advancing beyond the base that they have been protected) was at his own jeapordy.

"In my second example, I don't see how you can invoke any awards under 7.06(a) since there is no direct play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction." I think that what the JEA is saying in this particular example is that the throw to second occured at the time of the obstruction. The player was advancing to the base that the ball was thrown at the time of the obstruction, so that is Type A. I think the wording in the example should be more specific and not as amibiguous.

"Example #3: BR rounds first and decides to return to 1st. While attempting to return to 1st he is obstructed. The runner ultimately gets caught in a rundown and is tagged out. Ruling: Regardless of circumstances of how this runner is ultimately tagged out, his award is going to 1st base ... the base toward which he was striving at the time of the obstruction. So, if this runner is tagged out on a close play into 2nd - his award is 1st base." If the runner is being played on this would be Type A obstruction, and the runner would be awarded second base, regardless of the direction the runner is headed when the obstruction occurs. That's what I see in your description.

"Example #1: BR rounds first and is simply bluffing an advance to 2nd when he is obstructed. While attempting to return to 1st the BR is caught in a rundown. The umpire allows the rundown to proceed and calls the runner out if tagged out, regardless of where or how the out occurs. Essentially, this runner has no protection." Not necessarily. If the runner was bluffing and he is obstructed, the fielder is still guilty of an infraction. If B1 is bluffing, and F3 bumps him, you might not protect an advance to second, but you might protect a return to first. F3 obligation not to hinder the runner is not nullified by B1 attempt bluff.






[Edited by devilsadvocate on Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:46 PM]