Obstruction?-Nothing?

[chuckfan1]

Had a play this past weekend, and would like some feedback. Surprised I havnt had this happen more often, considering how often this type play unfolds:
R3, R1. R1 stealing on the pitch. F2 comes up firing, throwing to F4 moving in a straight line towards home, in case R3 decides to break for home.
F4, R1 and ball all come together in the same spot. R1 bumps into F4 as ball caroms off F4 glove. Due to F4 charging in to get the throw, F4 was in the baseline.
Now, having never seen this happen, I thought it was nothing. I guess one of those "train wrecks" that due happen. And my thinking that the fielder was "protected".
My partner called obstruction. Put R1 on 2nd, and kept R3 on 3rd, saying that R3 never attempted for home, and likely wouldnt have scored. He later explained to me that the Defensive coach wanted interference. My partner also told the def coach that the offense is protected on that play. When the coach asked why, partner said.."well who put the ball there?".....
But I keep thinking isnt this the same as a throw coming into 2nd base and ball runner and fielder all arrive at the same time? And its "nothing"? I knew it couldnt be interference on a thrown ball as that has to be intentional.
Unless due to the fact F4 charging into path of R1 makes it obstruction?
Im just surprised I havnt seen this before, as often as that play unfolds, especially at the youth level. Anyone?

[Atl Blue]

What rules?

In OBR, I would probably go with "nothing", but it's a HTBT call. F4 was "in the act of fielding" the ball, R1 did nothing intentional, it's probably just a train wreck.

In NCAA or LL, it MIGHT be obstruction. I still have no interference, as R1 did nothing intentional, and F4 is not "protected" on a thrown ball. Both NCAA and LL require the player to be in POSSESSION of the ball in order to block the baseline. However, both have interpretations that say if the player was drawn to that spot in order to glove the throw, then we are back to "nothing".

If F4 did not set up in that spot to get the ball, but was brought to it by the throw, and if R1 did nothing intentional to break up the throw, then I probably have nothing, but you had to be there.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
What rules?

In OBR, I would probably go with "nothing", but it's a HTBT call. F4 was "in the act of fielding" the ball, R1 did nothing intentional, it's probably just a train wreck.

In NCAA or LL, it MIGHT be obstruction. I still have no interference, as R1 did nothing intentional, and F4 is not "protected" on a thrown ball. Both NCAA and LL require the player to be in POSSESSION of the ball in order to block the baseline. However, both have interpretations that say if the player was drawn to that spot in order to glove the throw, then we are back to "nothing".

If F4 did not set up in that spot to get the ball, but was brought to it by the throw, and if R1 did nothing intentional to break up the throw, then I probably have nothing, but you had to be there.

It seems to be a planned play for the defense so I'd have a hard time thinking that the throw drew the fielder there in the sense used in the obstruction interp. The obstruction interp means the fielder was drawn by an errant throw. This doesn't seem to meet that.

[Atl Blue]

I agree that the play seems planned to draw F4 closer to the plate. That does not mean it was planned to draw him into the baseline.

As I said in more than one place, this is a HTBT. If F4 is running forward to catch a ball that was thrown toward 2B but was meant to be cut off, and he did nothing other than run to the spot where the ball was going, then I have nothing. If he is running forward and stops in the baseline to let the ball come to him, then I don't think the ball drew him to the spot, and I have OBS.

The fact that the play was planned does not mean the throw did not draw F4 to the spot.

[David B]

Originally posted by chuckfan1
Had a play this past weekend, and would like some feedback. Surprised I havnt had this happen more often, considering how often this type play unfolds:
R3, R1. R1 stealing on the pitch. F2 comes up firing, throwing to F4 moving in a straight line towards home, in case R3 decides to break for home.
F4, R1 and ball all come together in the same spot. R1 bumps into F4 as ball caroms off F4 glove. Due to F4 charging in to get the throw, F4 was in the baseline.
Now, having never seen this happen, I thought it was nothing. I guess one of those "train wrecks" that due happen. And my thinking that the fielder was "protected".
My partner called obstruction. Put R1 on 2nd, and kept R3 on 3rd, saying that R3 never attempted for home, and likely wouldnt have scored. He later explained to me that the Defensive coach wanted interference. My partner also told the def coach that the offense is protected on that play. When the coach asked why, partner said.."well who put the ball there?".....
But I keep thinking isnt this the same as a throw coming into 2nd base and ball runner and fielder all arrive at the same time? And its "nothing"? I knew it couldnt be interference on a thrown ball as that has to be intentional.
Unless due to the fact F4 charging into path of R1 makes it obstruction?
Im just surprised I havnt seen this before, as often as that play unfolds, especially at the youth level. Anyone?

I would have a very hard time coming up with obstruction on this play. One of the reasons would be that there was on play on the runner. Whose to say that R1 did not intentionally run into the path of the fielder etc.,

Probably going to be a train-wreck play on type of play, similiar to a play when the throw is to second base and F4 and R1 collide with R4 going to a wild throw etc.,

Thanks
David

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
I agree that the play seems planned to draw F4 closer to the plate. That does not mean it was planned to draw him into the baseline.

As I said in more than one place, this is a HTBT. If F4 is running forward to catch a ball that was thrown toward 2B but was meant to be cut off, and he did nothing other than run to the spot where the ball was going, then I have nothing. If he is running forward and stops in the baseline to let the ball come to him, then I don't think the ball drew him to the spot, and I have OBS.

The fact that the play was planned does not mean the throw did not draw F4 to the spot.

It's intentional. I've taught it. I've used it. It's done approx 2/3 of the way to 2B. You throw to F4 at that location because it does NOT look like a typical sucker play. R3 is more likely to go. The idea is to take the throw at the baseline. You get one quick shot at R1 as he passes and a good shot at R3 if he goes.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Sep 7th, 2004 at 11:10 PM]

[David B]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

It's intentional. I've taught it. I've used it. It's done approx 2/3 of the way to 2B. You throw to F4 at that location because it does NOT look like a typical sucker play. R3 is more likely to go. The idea is to take the throw at the baseline. You get one quick shot at R1 as he passes and a good shot at R3 if he goes.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Sep 7th, 2004 at 11:10 PM]

Sure its taught, but then so is baserunning.

The baserunner is taught to go behind the play at second so to avoid the tag or he is taught to go halfway and stop etc.,

He also could be taught if you get caught, run into F4, then they will give you second??

Coaching goes both ways.

Thanks
David

[Rich Ives]

Sure its taught, but then so is baserunning.

The baserunner is taught to go behind the play at second so to avoid the tag or he is taught to go halfway and stop etc.,

He also could be taught if you get caught, run into F4, then they will give you second??

Coaching goes both ways.

Thanks
David

Just trying to dispel Atl Blue's thought that it wasn't intentional . . . .

[scyguy]

If you look at FED rule 8-4-2g it makes mention of intentionally interfering with a throw or a thrown ball. However, if you look at the definition for offensive interference, rule 2-21-1a, it states interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to MAKE A PLAY. There is no mention of intent. Is the 2B making a play? Is the 2B hindered? impeded?

just food for thought.