Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
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.
|
Jim:
Quit giving all that good stuff away! (grin)
I consider Jim Porter to the one of the foremost experts on obstruction in the United States. Notice that he doesn't spend a lot of time quoting; he doesn't have to. He understands the theory and practice of obstruction. What's more, he doses it out is consecutive tablespoonfuls of medicine that's easy for us lesser mortals to swallow:
Ball and runner are heading for the same base, runner is obstructed, that's Type A, folks.
It is only the offense's "action" we need to consider when looking for the end [of playing action].
Type B obstruction was founded on the premise that the defense should not gain any kind of advantage from their illegal act.
[W]hen the defense is actively trying to put out an obstructed runner before his "protected to" base, that's the end of the hoedown.
I'm always arguing that the rules favor the offense. "Obstruction" is another example of that, as Jim also points out. (Hey, I just thought of another. The offense sends up a pinch hitter. The defense changes pitchers, so the offense sends up another pinch hitter. So the defense.... Oops, they are stuck, and the offense gets the advantage.)
Steve: Quit worrying about the difference between a "prescribed mechanic vs. a CSFP mechanic."
The instant an obstructed runner is played on, all play stops.
It might have been Type (a); it might have been Type (b). Now, though, it's Type (over).
Next:
1. The obstructed runner and all affected runners get one base -- at least. (The obstruction killed the ball: Type a.)
2. The umpire awards bases as he sees fit. (A "play" on the obstructed runner killed the ball: Type b. [Of course, all play might have ceased without the defense ever playing on the obstructed runner.])
Don't feel that you're the only one who needs help understanding this. Jim Evans thinks distinguising the difference between the two types is among the most difficult tasks of the umpire.
Here, of course, the National Federation has it best. Every obstruction is allowed to continue until ALL PLAYING ACTION IS OVER.
I call that Obstruction Type (play on). It's what you may have been confusing with the already confusing OBR obstruction statute.
Thanks, Jim, for riding in once again to save the day. (No, that was Mighty Mouse. Did he "ride"?)