Obstruction (OBR)

[Kaliix]

Game plyed under OBR. BR singles to right, F9 fields ball and throws in to 2nd base. As the BR is rounding first, he runs into F3. It was a normal play and the BR was not advancing to second, just rounding the bag after the single.

OBR 7.06(b) states "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."

Since the runner clearly would not have advanced to second, am I correct in keeping him at first even though he was obstructed rounding 1st?

If this happens under FED rules, this is an automatic award of second, correct?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Game plyed under OBR. BR singles to right, F9 fields ball and throws in to 2nd base. As the BR is rounding first, he runs into F3. It was a normal play and the BR was not advancing to second, just rounding the bag after the single.

OBR 7.06(b) states "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."

Since the runner clearly would not have advanced to second, am I correct in keeping him at first even though he was obstructed rounding 1st?

If this happens under FED rules, this is an automatic award of second, correct?

No, I disagree. By your admission alone, the runner was NOT obstructed because "the runner clearly would not have advanced to second". The Federation definition of obstruction is not that different when it talks about "hinderance" of the runner vs "impeding the progress" as per OBR. What it seems to me here, is "incidental contact".

[Rich]

Originally posted by jicecone

No, I disagree. By your admission alone, the runner was NOT obstructed because "the runner clearly would not have advanced to second". The Federation definition of obstruction is not that different when it talks about "hinderance" of the runner vs "impeding the progress" as per OBR. What it seems to me here, is "incidental contact".

A runner can be hindered without being able to advance to the next base. This is obstruction -- if it happened between the plate and first in a FED game, leave him at first. If it happened after the BR touched first, award second. It doesn't matter in FED whether he got would've gotten there or not. The fielder doesn't get free reign to get in the way of or bump the runner.

[greymule]

Fed's rule seems so unfair that many umpires often ignore the letter of the law.

BR gets a single to left, rounds 1B, stops, and trots back toward 1B as a lazy throw comes in to 2B. With no play whatsoever on him, BR has to move around F3 to get back to 1B.

In Fed (which does not recognize A and B OBS), this is OBS and BR is awarded 2B. I don't know of any other code that does this. I suspect that more than 90% of the time, Fed umps ignore this technical OBS.

[jicecone]

So any time there is contact with the fielder, obstruction is to be called and awarded.

Are we not inserting ourself into the game here?

If Im coaching, Im telling my player to make sure and run into someone on the way to a base or if overunning a base.

I agree Federation obstruction has its differences however, lead me to a reference that affords us the priviledege of this strict interpretaion. Intentional or unintentional obstruction is one thing but how can a runner be obstructed from something he isn't going to do? And are we as officials, not afforded the oppurtunity to make that reasonable distinction before rendering a decision?

How has the fielder "hindered the runner or changes the pattern of play" in this situation.

[Rich]

Originally posted by jicecone
So any time there is contact with the fielder, obstruction is to be called and awarded.

Are we not inserting ourself into the game here?

If Im coaching, Im telling my player to make sure and run into someone on the way to a base or if overunning a base.

I agree Federation obstruction has its differences however, lead me to a reference that affords us the priviledege of this strict interpretaion. Intentional or unintentional obstruction is one thing but how can a runner be obstructed from something he isn't going to do? And are we as officials, not afforded the oppurtunity to make that reasonable distinction before rendering a decision?

How has the fielder "hindered the runner or changes the pattern of play" in this situation.

Read the original play again. Why is the fielder where he is? There's two possibilities -- (1) He doesn't understand the game, or (2) He is forcing the runner to slow down and/or go around/bump the fielder. Either way, this IS a place to insert ourselves into the game. The runner WAS hindered. On a base hit, the runner should have the unimpeded right to round first how he sees fit.

The only contact I'll ignore is when both the runner AND the fielder are doing what they are supposed to do. In this situation, the fielder is NOT.

[WindyCityBlue]

A runner can be hindered without being able to advance to the next base. This is obstruction -- if it happened between the plate and first in a FED game, leave him at first. If it happened after the BR touched first, award second. It doesn't matter in FED whether he got would've gotten there or not. The fielder doesn't get free reign to get in the way of or bump the runner.

Rich,
Did I miss something? You are going to keep a guy at first if he is obstruvted before reaching that base???

The guy hits a rope down the line and gets tangled with the catcher. The hit would obviously be a double or more. Are you still going to keep him at first.

In Fed it absolutely matters (Umpire Judgement) if he would have gotten there or not. You penalize those that cheat, are stupid or make your job impossible.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by greymule

Fed's rule seems so unfair that many umpires often ignore the letter of the law.

BR gets a single to left, rounds 1B, stops, and trots back toward 1B as a lazy throw comes in to 2B. With no play whatsoever on him, BR has to move around F3 to get back to 1B.

In Fed (which does not recognize A and B OBS), this is OBS and BR is awarded 2B. I don't know of any other code that does this. I suspect that more than 90% of the time, Fed umps ignore this technical OBS.

IMO, the FED rule makes perfect sense. The defense committed an infraction of the rules and should be penalized.

When the offense interferes with a player fielding a batted ball, do we wait until the play is over and see what happens and then "wave off the infraction" - NO we call interference right away and enforce. The fact is the offense interfered so they are going to be peanlized.

Now we get to obstruction. How do we know for certain what was in the runner's thought process. More often than not, when a runner is obstructed, they will retreat back to their original base because (A) They can't assume the umpire saw and will call obstruction and (B) they do not know where they are protected to.

Therefore, in FED, the rule is giving the benefit of doubt to the obstructed runner which IMO is the way we should rule. The point is, F3 has no business being in the path of the runner without making a play.

In OBR (which was a much heated debate on another Forum about a yr or 2 ago), it's possible to award NO base which IMO gets the defense off the hook for committing an infraction of the rules.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Read the original play again. Why is the fielder where he is? There's two possibilities -- (1) He doesn't understand the game, or (2) He is forcing the runner to slow down and/or go around/bump the fielder. Either way, this IS a place to insert ourselves into the game. The runner WAS hindered. On a base hit, the runner should have the unimpeded right to round first how he sees fit.

The only contact I'll ignore is when both the runner AND the fielder are doing what they are supposed to do. In this situation, the fielder is NOT.

I have read the ENTIRE play again I agree with your two posibilities however, by Kaliix own admission, "the runner was NOT advanceing to second". Nor did he say anything in the rest of the thread to make me believe this.

You may feel it proper to insert yourself at this point, but I guess that unless you can substantiate it with reference, I have to disagree with you.

[Rich]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
A runner can be hindered without being able to advance to the next base. This is obstruction -- if it happened between the plate and first in a FED game, leave him at first. If it happened after the BR touched first, award second. It doesn't matter in FED whether he got would've gotten there or not. The fielder doesn't get free reign to get in the way of or bump the runner.

Rich,
Did I miss something? You are going to keep a guy at first if he is obstruvted before reaching that base???

The guy hits a rope down the line and gets tangled with the catcher. The hit would obviously be a double or more. Are you still going to keep him at first.

In Fed it absolutely matters (Umpire Judgement) if he would have gotten there or not. You penalize those that cheat, are stupid or make your job impossible.

All I was doing was referring to the original play in the original post. You are the one generalizing the situation.

And yes, I would punish this obstruction every time, jicecone. How do you have contact without hindrance? You aren't judging that he would've made second absent the obstruction at this point, you are only judging that the runner was obstructed.

--Rich

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

All I was doing was referring to the original play in the original post. You are the one generalizing the situation.

And yes, I would punish this obstruction every time, jicecone. How do you have contact without hindrance? You aren't judging that he would've made second absent the obstruction at this point, you are only judging that the runner was obstructed.

--Rich

I was refering to the original play also and still respect your opinion. I just saw it differently. Whatever.

[WindyCityBlue]

Rich,
This is not a generality...

This is obstruction -- if it happened between the plate and first in a FED game, leave him at first.

This was blanket advice.

I understand what the original post said, but in Fed, Umpire Judgement allows the award beyond first. The penalty you impose must fit the infraction, but in High School baseball, the penalty is always the harshest allowable. We can and do put runners on second and third when they have been obstructed before reaching first. A lot of people read these posts as Gospel. Some catch snippets and take them to the field. I was not ripping you, just criticizing the advice as being too general.

[jicecone]

Rich,

After reading 2004 BRD a little deeper and rereading Pete Booth's input I think I understand your side a little better.

I have one more HS game left this season mabey I will get a chance to apply this. Hopefully not. I enjoy it much better when they don't even know I was there. If thats how Fed wants , so be it.

Thanks

[Rich]

Originally posted by jicecone
Rich,

After reading 2004 BRD a little deeper and rereading Pete Booth's input I think I understand your side a little better.

I have one more HS game left this season mabey I will get a chance to apply this. Hopefully not. I enjoy it much better when they don't even know I was there. If thats how Fed wants , so be it.

Thanks

I think it is good advice even in an OBR game. Call the obstruction at the moment the contact happens. If it's type B, you can leave the runner where he is if necessary. It's harder to get an obstruction call sold if you wait until you decide you need it.

I figured I'd get obstruction in my games today since I was talking about it, but only had interference. Shortstop came up to field a ground ball and R2 ran right into him. Amazing how routine that was in the end.

--Rich