[DownTownTonyBrown]

As some of you are probably aware there is a difference in the obstruction penalty/rules for softball and baseball (NFHS)

Softball says 8-4-3 Penalty 3. "... will always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction." And that's the end of it.

Baseball adds 8-3-2 "... the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

For my money, these two phrases in the baseball rules don't agree. A player returning to a base when he is obstructed... the first half of the rules says he gets that base. The second phrase says he gets advanced beyond the base last reached.

You will probably want to review the appropriate casebook plays - as I discuss them below.

The Case Book 8.3.2A gives an example with obstruction upon returning to 3rd after a rundown and finding a subsequent runner already at 3rd. CB says that you would enforce the second phrase - obstructed runner gets advanced to home. Is this because there was another runner at 3rd or is this because obstruction requires the runner to be advanced to the next base (home)?

8.3.2C Says the fielder may obstruct when a play is imminent. Then goes on to say "The benefit of any doubt should be given to the runner." Doubt about what - the immediacy of the play?

8.3.2D says the runner gets advanced independent of what an umpire would likely feel are "the bases they would have reached." Despite the bang-bang force out the runner is awarded the next base because another defender, outside the defensive play involving the ball, commits obstruction. Seems like the obstruction may not have affected the outcome of the play (force out) yet the runner gets advanced rather than out.

8.3.2G Says again that the fielder may obstruct in his attempt to catch a throw - again using the word "imminent." So why doesn't the first baseman block the base with every pick-off attempt? Surely the play is imminent with every attempt. I particulary don't like this casebook play but it is very similar to what occurs with close plays at homeplate. Maybe my dislike of this caseplay is because you routinely have pickoff attempts and only occasionally get a collision with the ball at homeplate.

8.3.2I Says that a fielder "cannot be in the baseline without the ball, if a play is not imminent." Obstruction can be called when there is no contact. Big Deal. Is there something I am missing about this caseplay?

Obviously much is dependent upon the umpire's sense of immediacy. Would anyone care to discuss and clarify the obstruction rule and its enforcement? I realise that laying out a play that accurately displays the sense of immediacy to a reader is difficult. Help us if you can.

I guess the real question is when do you protect the runner and NOT advance him to the next base? Ever? Then why is that statement in the rules?