[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair

When I wrote my initial post, I also had the following play in mind:

R1 only. Batter singles to right and is obstructed after making an aggressive turn at 1B, judged to be an attempt of bluff. R1 is advancing to 3B. F9 has fielded the ball and may or may not have thrown at the time of obstruction. F9's throw is cutoff by F4, who has gone toward right as a cutoff.
Consider the following:

1. How do we know F9's throw is a play on the BR and not a possible play on R1? Our judgement was that BR was not advancing to 2B (and, in fact, did not).
   
2. Since BR has apparently stopped in his tracks on his bluff attempt, can the play at 2B actually be considered a play on BR?
   
3. If any throw is cut, can that initial throw be considered a play on the advancing runner?
   (Keep in mind the LL World Series plate play where this question came to pass relative to F2's blocking of the plate and being "in the act of fielding")

The mechanic for Type B obstruction is to "allow play to continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible" (NAPBL). So, taking the above example and considering the throw to 2B is after the obstruction occurred OR that the ball is cut by F4, shouldn't we allow play to continue?

Certainly a direct throw to 2B could be considered as a play on BR under Type A obstruction if the ball was released at or before the time of obstruction---or is it, since we judged the obstruction occurred during a "bluff" and BR was not advancing to BR. What about if it were released AFTER the time of obstruction? Can it change from Type B to Type A? I would think not, but NAPBL states under Type A obstruction mechanic:


If the umpire judges that a throw was made after the obstruction [my emphasis], the obstructed runner will be awarded only one base from the base he last touched at the time of obstruction.

This statement seems to contradict Type A definition that this would even BE a Type A obstruction if, indeed, a throw was made AFTER the obstruction occurred---unless Type B can change into Type A. Furthermore, let's suppose a Type B obstructed runner is thrown out at a base, is not the umpire rather than calling the runner out supposed to kill the play and make the appropriate award? This would also seem to contradict the concept of Type B mechanics which states to allow all play to continue unless the Type B has changed to Type A---at least as far as mechanics are concerned.

In the play above now, suppose F4 cuts the ball and plays upon BR returning to 1B which results in a rundown.

1. Should we kill the play there based on CSFP or based on rule? (Not to argue CSFP in this situation).
   
2. What if R1 is continuing to advance to home during the throw of F4 to F3? If the defense gets BR in a rundown and we kill the play, aren't we denying the offense (the offended party) the opportunity to score a run?
   
While I would agree that CSFP says stay away from the 3rd world play and kill the ball when a Type B obstructed runner gets involved in a rundown, I can see where it could be detrimental to the offense.

Let's suppose in my example that the BR wasn't obstructed, but rather R1 was obstructed by F6 as F4 took a throw at 2B (no play being made on R1). Now, F4 relays to F5 where R1 is either tagged out or caught in a rundown? During those events BR is advancing to 2B. Are we to kill the play if R1 is caught in a rundown or tagged out. With F9's throw going to 2B, it is very apparent R1 was not "being played upon" at the time of the obstruction. Are we not killing the defense's opportunity to retire BR, which had nothing to do with obstruction? Aren't we killing BR's attempt to advance (although we may award 2B to BR)?

I seem confused about a Type B mechanic here as it seems contradictory to allowing the play to continue until "all play has ceased and no further action is possible." Are we to kill the ball when a play is eventually made upon a Type B obstructed runner and he is out or in a rundown---or are we to "allow all play to cease"? If so, is this by rule, or by CSFP? While I don't mind using CSFP in lieu of rule, I like to know when I am doing that.

I think I truly need help in understanding the prescribed mechanic vs. a CSFP mechanic recommended to avoid a 3rd world play.

Freix [/B]

There are two issues here which are widely misunderstood.

The first is understanding the difference between Types A and B obstruction. EXAMPLE: A runner is obstructed while retreating to first. The ball reaches first before the runner. That means that the ball and runner were both heading to first. A play is being made on this obstructed runner, so it is Type A. We need not play technical games with the question of exactly when the ball left the fielder's hand. That's not within the spirit and intent of the obstruction rule. Ball and runner are heading for the same base, runner is obstructed, that's Type A, folks.

The other widely misunderstood aspect to the obstruction rule surrounds this quote from the OBR:

If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible.

So, what we're talking about is the interpretation of, "until no further action is possible." It is natural to assume that this means a typical end to continuous action. But it does not.

Since the defense is required to provide a free and clear path for runners to advance, the obstruction rule clearly favors the offense and penalizes the defense. The only party to be hurt by a premature end to action during Type B obstruction would be the offense. They would be denied the chance to acquire further bases. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume we are continuing play only for the offense's benefit. Since that is the case, it is only the offense's "action" we need to consider when looking for the end.

When the defense possesses the ball and attempts a tag, or when they initiate a rundown, at that moment no further action is possible by the offense. They can no longer run the bases while the ball knocks around the outfield. They now must deal with the defense and the ball.

Obstruction is there for the offense. In no way should obstruction ever aid, protect, or help the defense. Type B obstruction was founded on the premise that the defense should not gain any kind of advantage from their illegal act. With the ball bouncing around the outfield, even obstructed runners should be allowed to continue on their way since the possibility of acquiring advance bases is apparent. To disallow such an advance would indeed be an advantage for the defense gained from their illegal act.

But when the defense is actively trying to put out an obstructed runner before his "protected to" base, that's the end of the hoedown. The offense no longer needs play to continue, because acquiring any bases beyond the protected base, in real baseball, just ain't possible. We would allow play to continue if the tag attempt or rundown is not on the protected runner, or is on an obstructed runner whose protection has ended.