What do you think of this?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Guys,
This was a High School game. The OBR has no bearing.
The ball dropped uncaught in righht field. The batter runner would ahve made it to first no problem. He was clocked two steps from the bag.

I'm looking for a Fed interp.

Probably the closest I see in the 2003 case book is 8.3.2 Sit d, pg 58.

Although, in the sit. the out is registered after the obstruction, I believe because there is a delayed dead ball any out registered on the unobstructed runners remain.

[WindyCityBlue]

This was my nightmare game.

I've been at this awhile and never seen anything close.

Bob, which rule are you referring to that allows the out to stand?

The runner from third held because he thought the ball would be caught. The obstruction occurred before the out at the dish. Because the B/R was not allowed the opportunity to gain first base, I allowed the two runs to score and awarded him one base past the base he would have had.

I'm not looking for an "attaboy". I just know that I will see this coach over the course of the playoffs and want to be prepared.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I see no reason to award the BR 2nd. The throw by F9 to home was great (sounds like to me). No other runners would have advanced (bases were loaded). BR would have stopped at 1st even if not obstructed, because other runners were stacked up in front of him not moving because the catcher has the ball.

Try NFHS 8-1-1e, & 8-3-2

Sounds like a great defensive play. If I understand the situation correctly, I would have let the out at home stand and put the BR on 1st. Play ball.

The collision at/before 1st was incidental and did not affect the other runners - let the defense's efforts stand.

Perhaps it was different than I have understood.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
This was my nightmare game.

I've been at this awhile and never seen anything close.

Bob, which rule are you referring to that allows the out to stand?

Case 8.3.2D has a play where an out that occurs after obstruction is allowed to stand (you have to get past the strange wording in the penultimate sentence -- replace "Because of" with "Despite"

The runner from third held because he thought the ball would be caught. The obstruction occurred before the out at the dish. Because the B/R was not allowed the opportunity to gain first base, I allowed the two runs to score and awarded him one base past the base he would have had.

Why do you say BR was not allowed the opportunity to reach first? As I read the play, he reached it, despite the obstruction.

The penalty for obstruction is not "one base past the base he would have had" it's "one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred." (8-3-2)

[gsf23]

Same thing here, I can't see giving the runner second base when the bases were loaded and the catcher is holding the ball. Maybe if there wasn't a runner at first already or the ball gets away from the catcher, then maybe he would get second base. The way I read the play, I give the DDB signal, see if the runner makes it to first, wait for the play to end. If ended like you said with a runner out at home, runner out, batter at first where he would have been without the obstruction, play ball.

[DG]

This play has worried the sh*t out of me all day. Granted this was a FED question, but we have mixed in some OBR in our discussion. My thoughts all day have been "how can it be logical to wipe out an out at the plate on an outstanding throw by RFielder with bases loaded because the batter was obstructed going to 1B, in either FED or OBR?" The obstruction had nothing to do with the throw to the plate. This has never come up in any games I have done, or seen, so this is all new to me, and very interesting. Prior to reading all this commentary I am sure I would have called an out at the plate (if I were the PU), and awarded 1B to batter (if I were the BU). I believe, whether right or wrong, if this were the ruling there would be no arguments from anyone.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG
This play has worried the sh*t out of me all day. Granted this was a FED question, but we have mixed in some OBR in our discussion. My thoughts all day have been "how can it be logical to wipe out an out at the plate on an outstanding throw by RFielder with bases loaded because the batter was obstructed going to 1B, in either FED or OBR?" The obstruction had nothing to do with the throw to the plate. This has never come up in any games I have done, or seen, so this is all new to me, and very interesting. Prior to reading all this commentary I am sure I would have called an out at the plate (if I were the PU), and awarded 1B to batter (if I were the BU). I believe, whether right or wrong, if this were the ruling there would be no arguments from anyone.

DG - read 7.06(a). On type A obstruction, which includes obstruction on the batter before reaching first base, the ball is dead immediately. If the play at the plate happens after the obstruction, it happens, by rule, with a dead ball.

--Rich

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

DG - read 7.06(a). On type A obstruction, which includes obstruction on the batter before reaching first base, the ball is dead immediately. If the play at the plate happens after the obstruction, it happens, by rule, with a dead ball.

--Rich

I'm not sure I can deduce from the original post that the obstruction happened after the obstruction. Sounded like it was the other way around. Anyway, I think 7.06a is talking about obstruction when a play is being made on the obstructed runner, and 7.06b is talking about obstruction on a runner who is not being played on. But both say that we should advance runners to the bases they would have reached had the obstruction not occured and since the runner from 3rd was thrown out, and the obstruction had nothing to do with him then the out should stand and the batter goes to 1B, unless we think he could have made 2B, which I don't see that happening.

[WindyCityBlue]

The play at the plate happened literally seconds after the B/R was knocked down.

We had three officials on the field and all of us agreed that the out at home should be negated because it was after the delayed dead ball and the defense made no attempt to put out the man at first.

[David B]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
The play at the plate happened literally seconds after the B/R was knocked down.

We had three officials on the field and all of us agreed that the out at home should be negated because it was after the delayed dead ball and the defense made no attempt to put out the man at first.

I still don't understand why you would have negated the out at home.

Its a delayed dead ball which means the ball is alive until the play if over. Once the play is over, BR is on first, the base he would have reached so you have no need to enforce obstruction.

Even then, in enforcing obstruction, it only affects those who are forced to advance because of the award to the obstructed runner.

The runner at home was on his own.

Thanks
David

[mcrowder]

Because the rules say so. 7.06a.

Giving him 2nd was wrong though.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Because the rules say so. 7.06a.

Giving him 2nd was wrong though.

Did you read any of this thread?

That is exactly what has been discussed, Federation rules, the out stands.

[David B]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Because the rules say so. 7.06a.

Giving him 2nd was wrong though.

This is HS ball FED rules.

Thanks
David

[Daryl H. Long]

Here is my answer: I agree with David B but I will cite the appropriate FED rules that apply.

Resume play with bases loaded and one out.

In my opinion the obstructed runner reached the base I thought he would therefore obstruction is ignores since it did not affect the other runner. Any play on them stands therefore runner is out at home. NO OPTIONS GIVEN TO COACH IN THIS SITUATION.

The question now is to sort out the play and determine if the play stands or I must make an award for the obstruction.

It has already been established that Batter-runner was obstucted (Fed 2.22.1). Obstruction is a delayed dead ball situation (Fed 5.1.2b). When all pay has stopped the umpire shall call time and the ball becomes dead (Fed 5.1.3)


Letting the play stand speaks for itself. (This is my answer and reasons follow).

DownTownTonyBrowne mentioned the two FED rules that may apply to this situation. FED 8.1.1e and FED 8.3.2.

Which applies can be know through some general logic.

Rule 8.1 covers the situation in which the BATTER becomes a baserunner. Fed 8.1.1e says that the BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER when the catcher or any other defensive player obstructs him. What that is saying is he was obstructed as a BATTER and because of such became a baserunner.

Is that why the batter was running on the play in question? NO. He was running because he hit a fair ball (FED 8.1.1a) Therefore, FED 8.3.2 applies.

...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.

In this play the obstruction did not hinder any other runner other than the batter-baserunner. In my opinion, given the shallow hit the batter would not have reached any base beyond 1st and when time was called he was AT first.
Since no other runners were affected by the obstruction whatever had happened to them at the point time was called stands.

IN MY OPINION, if this happened in my game since the obstructed runner reached the base I thought he would have reached, then the obstruction is ignored. The out at the plate stands and we resume play with bases loaded and 1 out.

Of course I would have to explain to coach and if the same behavior happened as in the original post then there would have been 3 ejections; The coach, the catcher, and the on-deck batter.









[Edited by Daryl H. Long on May 23rd, 2004 at 10:59 PM]

[MichaelVA2000]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]Here is the insane High School play of the day...

Bases loaded...no outs...the batter hits a Texas leaguer into short right field. The right fielder comes charging in, the first and second basemen busting out...they converge and the ball falls to the ground. The right fielder scoops it up and fires a strike to the catcher in front of the dish. He tags the runner from third prior to him reaching the plate.

You with me so far? As the ball was in the air, the pitcher, WATCHING THE BALL NOT WHERE HE WAS GOING, heads to first to cover the unoccupied base. Only, he sideswipes the B/R before he gets there and knocks him down. Obstruction is called, and since the ball was being held by the catcher, “Time” was called. The B/R was awarded second base on the obstruction, pushing home TWO RUNS. That’s correct, the out at the plate was nullified and the runners on second and third were scored because of the award.

The defensive head coach goes nuts and winds up getting tossed during the explanation. The next batter is in his on deck circle and starts laughing. The catcher walks over to him and they get into it. The catcher gets dumped when he pushes the on deck batter down.
Calm is restored and the game goes eleven innings before the team that benefited from the obstruction wins on a passed ball.

What do you think of the rulings?

The responses regarding OBR rules have no bearing since this is a high school game using Fed rules.

Seems like things developed quickly after F9 fielded the ball and threw home. In this high school game I would have killed the play upon F1's contact with the batter runner before the BR reached first base. Since the out at the plate had nothing to do with the obstruction I have one out.
With the catcher holding the ball, in my judgment the other runners would not have advanced further than the next base.

I now have no run scored and one out, bases loaded with the assistant coach at the helm for the defense as well as a new catcher.

Michael