Runner forced off of legally attained base

[PandaBear]

Which is how I've always administered such situations, and will continue to do so absent guidance to a rule that differs.

But when the situation arose this past weekend in an NCAA D1 game (date, league, teams, umpire involved not mentioned because the objective isn't to call anyone out, but to provide enhanced understanding), once time had been called, the baserunner popped up and headed to second almost immediately, and before the base umpire pointed to second to signal the award, which he did.

The first base coach was of course waving his arms and pointing, but first base coaches want an award of second if a cloud passes over the field, so that didn't necessarily mean anything.

But none of the 1st baseman, the defensive team captain, or the defensive coaching staff so much as questioned it, and they had already in the series established a pattern of questioning if not outright arguing considerably less controversial or obscure rulings.

This is what prompted me to an extensive searching of rule books for something I'd overlooked or forgotten to account for the award. When multiple people with competing agendas universally accept something, there's usually a reason, especially in baseball!

[umpjim]

This was added to the MLBUM sometime after 2012:

"12. RUNNER PUSHED OFF BASE
Rule 5.06(a)(1) [former rule 7.01]:

If in the judgement of an umpire, a runner is pushed or forced off a base by a fielder, intentionally or unintentionally, at which the runner would have otherwise been called safe, the umpire has the authority and discretion under the circumstances to return the runner to the base he was forced off following the conclusion of the play."

I would think NCAA would follow. Can't see a 1 base award in your OP.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

But none of the 1st baseman, the defensive team captain, or the defensive coaching staff so much as questioned it, and they had already in the series established a pattern of questioning if not outright arguing considerably less controversial or obscure rulings.

Something else must have happened that you did not notice /describe.

[PandaBear]

Or a mistake was made. It was officially scored "E1 - advanced to second on a throwing error by p, failed pickoff attempt." It was a failed pickoff attempt, but F3 caught the ball, and had it in his glove until he tossed it back to F1. It was not called or scored a balk (that happened in another inning, at another base), and a balk is not scored an error.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

Or a mistake was made. It was officially scored "E1 - advanced to second on a throwing error by p, failed pickoff attempt." It was a failed pickoff attempt, but F3 caught the ball, and had it in his glove until he tossed it back to F1. It was not called or scored a balk (that happened in another inning, at another base), and a balk is not scored an error.

Or F3, prior to catching the ball, obstructed R1 on the pick. Then the mistake made was on the scorer who should have had E3.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

Which is how I've always administered such situations, and will continue to do so absent guidance to a rule that differs.

But when the situation arose this past weekend in an NCAA D1 game (date, league, teams, umpire involved not mentioned because the objective isn't to call anyone out, but to provide enhanced understanding), once time had been called, the baserunner popped up and headed to second almost immediately, and before the base umpire pointed to second to signal the award, which he did.

The first base coach was of course waving his arms and pointing, but first base coaches want an award of second if a cloud passes over the field, so that didn't necessarily mean anything.

But none of the 1st baseman, the defensive team captain, or the defensive coaching staff so much as questioned it, and they had already in the series established a pattern of questioning if not outright arguing considerably less controversial or obscure rulings.

This is what prompted me to an extensive searching of rule books for something I'd overlooked or forgotten to account for the award. When multiple people with competing agendas universally accept something, there's usually a reason, especially in baseball!

Sounds like it was an obstruction call.

[PandaBear]

It sort of does sound like obstruction, except the runner had a clear and direct path back to the base, and successfully took it. Also, obstruction was never signaled, prior to or after the falling onto the runner portion of the play. That could be an omission, but why the award of second? There was no effort to advance, and given the ball was never loose, hard to envision a scenario where a successful advance to second would ensue absent a errant throw, and NCAA rules do not mandate a forward award.

Obstruction would theoretically occur an instant after the runner was forced off the base, and contact continued, and that might be the ruling that is the answer to my original question, what rule to enforce in the event of a force off? Base awarded is then a judgement call, but in a code lacking a requirement of a forward award, which most BB & SB codes do not include, while probably an effective punitive measure to discourage a repeat performance, it still strains credibility to suggest the runner would have advanced absent the obstruction in a scenario where the runner had returned and was attempting to stay on the base returned to.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

It sort of does sound like obstruction, except the runner had a clear and direct path back to the base, and successfully took it. Also, obstruction was never signaled, prior to or after the falling onto the runner portion of the play. That could be an omission, but why the award of second? There was no effort to advance, and given the ball was never loose, hard to envision a scenario where a successful advance to second would ensue absent a errant throw, and NCAA rules do not mandate a forward award.

Obstruction would theoretically occur an instant after the runner was forced off the base, and contact continued, and that might be the ruling that is the answer to my original question, what rule to enforce in the event of a force off? Base awarded is then a judgement call, but in a code lacking a requirement of a forward award, which most BB & SB codes do not include, while probably an effective punitive measure to discourage a repeat performance, it still strains credibility to suggest the runner would have advanced absent the obstruction in a scenario where the runner had returned and was attempting to stay on the base returned to.

NCAA (and OBR) rules DO mandate a minimum one base award when the obstructed runner is being played on - as in this play. So R1 goes to 2B.

FED rules mandate a minimum one base award in any event.

Contact is not required to have obstruction.

[ilyazhito]

Baseball has a "God rule" (8.01c, in the new OBR), similar to the football rules for unfair acts, where the umpire can rule on issues not explicitly covered in the rules. This is a perfect example of such an issue. Obstruction is an act that impedes the runner in advancing or returning to a base, but forcing someone off a base is not defined in the rules. However, the obstruction penalty would be appropriate for forcing a runner off his base, because the runner is denied the opportunity to stay on the base, return to it, or to advance. 8.01(c) could be used to justify this intepretation.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Baseball has a "God rule" (8.01c, in the new OBR), similar to the football rules for unfair acts, where the umpire can rule on issues not explicitly covered in the rules. This is a perfect example of such an issue. Obstruction is an act that impedes the runner in advancing or returning to a base, but forcing someone off a base is not defined in the rules. However, the obstruction penalty would be appropriate for forcing a runner off his base, because the runner is denied the opportunity to stay on the base, return to it, or to advance. 8.01(c) could be used to justify this intepretation.

No it couldn't. Considering that OBR/MLBUM has an interp for it.

[LRZ]

PandaBear, Rich Ives is referring to OBR 6.01(h)(1) [play on the runner being obstructed] and (2) [no play on the obstructed runner].

(1) reads, in part, "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

(2) reads, "If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call 'Time' and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

It sort of does sound like obstruction, except the runner had a clear and direct path back to the base, and successfully took it. Also, obstruction was never signaled, prior to or after the falling onto the runner portion of the play. That could be an omission, but why the award of second? There was no effort to advance, and given the ball was never loose, hard to envision a scenario where a successful advance to second would ensue absent a errant throw, and NCAA rules do not mandate a forward award.

Obstruction would theoretically occur an instant after the runner was forced off the base, and contact continued, and that might be the ruling that is the answer to my original question, what rule to enforce in the event of a force off? Base awarded is then a judgement call, but in a code lacking a requirement of a forward award, which most BB & SB codes do not include, while probably an effective punitive measure to discourage a repeat performance, it still strains credibility to suggest the runner would have advanced absent the obstruction in a scenario where the runner had returned and was attempting to stay on the base returned to.

I'm guessing but if F3 blocked the base with any part of his body as the ball and runner were on the way the ump could rule Obstruction and an immediate dead ball. The throw then could have taken F3 out of his blocking attempt, allowing the runner access and causing F3 to become unbalanced. The 1BC probably was pointing at the initial block attempt, usually the kneeling of one lower leg accross the access to the bag.

[PandaBear]

In a case like that, where obstruction was called before the runner returning to the base successfully reached the base, then yes, there would be an award of 2nd base. This is the scenario Rich is referring to, where it would be type 1 obstruction (NCAA), or 8.3.2 (Fed).

In this particular case, F3 was initially in the typical pickoff position, which doesn't (and didn't) block the bag. He did move forward to make the catch, of a less than perfect play (probably why it wound up E1, though in my experience, that would be reserved for a throw that got away or at least pulled the fielder so far that making a play wasn't possible), and its possible obstruction was called as he moved to make the catch, even though, in this particular case, it didn't block access to the base in any way.

Rich is right, in that no contact is required to have obstruction, but passing between a runner and the base he's moving toward isn't automatically obstruction either.

I suspect in this case, though the umpire never signaled obstruction (reminder of why signal mechanics matter, it makes it clear what you are calling [whether you are right or wrong!], which is helpful in untangling complex plays like this one, where several things happened), that's what he ruled. Whether the observer agreed with the ruling is another matter, but that was his judgement.

But what if in a similar situation, there clearly is no obstruction prior to the runner obtaining the base, where the defender in possession of the ball is approaching from a different angle, and a different side of the base, from that of the runner. Further, once the runner successfully attains the base they are attempting, protection from any prior obstruction ends. If that runner is then subsequently forced off the base, any attempt to return to that base that encountered physical contact by a defensive player who doesn't have the ball would be obstruction, but when said defensive player posses the ball, he can block all day, and that isn't obstruction.

I'm surprised the specific act of a force off by a defensive player in possession of the ball isn't addressed, as I've seen it happen several times over the years, and at various levels/sanctions. This isn't a "maybe once in your career" situation.

Because its obviously not a "proper" play, I've never had any blowback for calling time, and restoring the player to the base. I suspect that might not be the case were a forward award made if there was in fact clearly no obstruction prior to the force off, which would take the scenarios Rich addressed out of the equation.

It does sound like these cases are in fact covered only either by a call of obstruction prior to reaching the base, which while best called before the runner reaches the base, can be announced and signaled after the fact, OR invoking of the variations of what was referred to as the "god rule", which does exist in every code in some form or another, if challenged. And while an MLB interp might be a useful opinion to learn from, it wouldn't carry any regulatory weight in other codes. It would make sense to treat a force off as a form of obstruction, similar to the fake tag language.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

, and its possible obstruction was called as he moved to make the catch, even though, in this particular case, it didn't block access to the base in any way.

Rich is right, in that no contact is required to have obstruction, but passing between a runner and the base he's moving toward isn't automatically obstruction either.

Blocking access (or allowing access) is only a FED concept. It isn't in OBR.NCAA. All that's required in OBR/NCAA in hindrance.Can be as simple as a stutter step as F3 ran in front of R1.

[bob jenkins]

A couple of things on this:

1) Here is the NCAA rule, which, on pickoffs, varies from FED and OBR:

Note
On a pickoff play at any base, the defensive player must clearly have
possession of the pickoff throw before blocking the base with any part of the
defensive player’s body. The umpire will call, “time, that’s obstruction.” The ball
is dead immediately, and the runner being played on is awarded one base beyond
the last base he had attained before the obstruction

2) NCAA has (or had when I worked it) a specific directive that if something was not covered in NCAA but covered in OBR (including MLBUM), then use the MLBUM interp.

3) FED had a specific OBS mechanic (the outstretched fist), but has dropped it. I don't think NCAA ever had one (other than calling time (or pointing if the ball wasn't immediately dead) as mentioned in the rule above)