Runner forced off of legally attained base

[PandaBear]

Looking for specific rule citation (Fed or NCAA) for the situation where a player has legal possession of a base, but is forced off/out of contact with the base during live ball play by a defensive player.

Specific situation was a baserunner returning to base on a pickoff play, in which the runner successfully retouched, and then the fielder, in possession of the ball (so obstruction is not an issue), lost balance and fell onto the baserunner who had slid into the base. As a result, the baserunner was psychically forced off the base, and while off base, the fielder, who had possession of the ball in glove, touched the baserunner with gloved hand, in what would be a legal tag.

But it could apply in a number of other situations where contact occurs by a fielder in possession of the ball, and not something you could reasonably consider malicious contact (like shoving a base runner off the base so you could then tag them out while off base).

The "Make final decision on points not covered by the rules" provision doesn't seem like it should be the only basis for correcting a situation like this, but unless I'm suffering a case of "Monday", I'm not locating more specific rules reference.

[udbrky]

Wendelstedt Interpretation Manual says that if the momentum of the runner takes them off, they're out, but fielder cannot force them off the bag. You call "Time! You're staying here!" runner is not out.

Don't have exact wording, I loaned my copy out.

It's the Hrbek play basically.

[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 udbrky

It's the Hrbek play basically.

Gant was pushed.

[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 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.

[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."