Did It effect the Play?

[PeteBooth]

Since we have been discussing some theory regarding the history of baseball rules, I decided to continue.

We have just completed or still contemplating (depending upon your point of view), F1 (while in the wind-up) stepping back with wrong foot and whether to call a Balk. If I read Papa C correctly, it all depends upon the situation.

If F1 is trying to be "tricky" or pull a fast one - Balk him in a hearbeat but if he merely forget that men were on base and made no other movement as to actually deceive the runner - we ignor.

Now what about obstruction? Do we rule along the same lines?

Example; B1 singles to right and makes that turn which we were all taught to do. However, in making the turn he is obstructed by F3 but in our minds, even if he wasn't obstructed, there's no way in hell he would have got second
anyway.

Now I realize F3 or any other fielder has no business being in the base-path unless they are in the act of fielding the ball, but on the same token why grant the offense a Freebie .

So my main point is: Before we call an infraction of the rules should we first ask ourselves - Did it effect the outcome of the play? If the answer to this is yes, then call the infraction and enforce according to the rules, however, if the answer to this is no, do we ignor?

Your comments please

Thanks

Pete Booth

[JJ]

My brain really doesn't work that fast - in the continuing action of a baseball game it's hard enough just determining IF there was obstruction much less trying to determine WHY it occurred and what MAY have happened. If I call the obstruction I then have time to think about it - and award bases the runner would have reached had there been no obstruction (in FED I don't even have to think that hard - he's going to get at least one). Breaking the rules and paying the penalty is ONE way players learn what they can and cannot do - if I call obstruction on that first baseman he most likely won't be in the way in the future.

[Rich Ives]

Peaches and Pears I think.

I think the starting point for the "step off with the wrong foot" was in conjunction with the coach yelling out "Hey, Bubba, pitch from the stretch," thus we had a condition where, in theory, everyone on the park knew he was just changing positions. It was this "we knew ahead of time" point that resulted in the no-call, and not the actual mechanical miscue.

This is very different from your obstruction scene where you cannot be sure that the runner would not have had a snowball's chance (error, throw to wrong base, whatever).

[Phil Vivenzio]

Pete:
I believe when Carl said its a "don't do that" when the pitcher in the wind up steps off with his/her wrong foot, there is no on on base, therefor no,penalty.

Regards
Phil

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
We have just completed or still contemplating (depending upon your point of view), F1 (while in the wind-up) stepping back with wrong foot and whether to call a Balk. If I read Papa C correctly, it all depends upon the situation.

--- [snip] ---

Now what about obstruction? Do we rule along the same lines?

No, Pete. The reason you need to make a decision depending upon the situation with the balk rule is because of the clear and unequivocal underlying intent of the rule makers in making that rule, as stated in the End Note to OBR 8.05. That can be enunciated as "...to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner" by "an illegal act."

There is no such clearly and specifically enunciated underlying intent in the codification of the rules on obstruction. Most of that has to be inferred from the rule's history and the occasional casebook comment and official interpretation. What's more, unlike the balk rule where the pitcher's INTENT can be considered, there is no consideration of the INTENT of the fielder required to judge obstruction; only the effect the act is relevant.

Cheers,

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

No, Pete. The reason you need to make a decision depending upon the situation with the balk rule is because of the clear and unequivocal underlying intent of the rule makers in making that rule, as stated in the End Note to OBR 8.05. That can be enunciated as "...to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner" by "an illegal act."

There is no such clearly and specifically enunciated underlying intent in the codification of the rules on obstruction. Most of that has to be inferred from the rule's history and the occasional casebook comment and official interpretation. What's more, unlike the balk rule where the pitcher's INTENT can be considered, there is no consideration of the INTENT of the fielder required to judge obstruction; only the effect the act is relevant.

Cheers,

I recall the 2000 World Series wherein Knoblauch had a base hit to the outfield. As he rounded first base and headed toward second he contacted first baseman Todd Zeile, a more natural third baseman. He continued to second and was out by a country mile. The first base umpire ruled obstruction and awarded second base. Some felt that Yankee coach Lee Mazzilli influenced the ump. I forget his name but I think he was either a first or second year guy.

I may be wrong but I think if I have a similar play and their is minor incidental contact, no legitimate chance for a double, the runner may have altered his path to initiate the contact, and he returns to first base -- I have nothing.

Your thoughts on this particular play in the Series and my theoretical play, which is somewhat different in terms

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
I recall the 2000 World Series wherein Knoblauch had a base hit to the outfield. As he rounded first base and headed toward second he contacted first baseman Todd Zeile, a more natural third baseman. He continued to second and was out by a country mile. The first base umpire ruled obstruction and awarded second base. Some felt that Yankee coach Lee Mazzilli influenced the ump. I forget his name but I think he was either a first or second year guy.

I may be wrong but I think if I have a similar play and their is minor incidental contact, no legitimate chance for a double, the runner may have altered his path to initiate the contact, and he returns to first base -- I have nothing.

Your thoughts on this particular play in the Series and my theoretical play, which is somewhat different in terms

The only INITIAL judgement with Obstruction is did the fielder impede the runner's legitimate attempt to advance. That applies whether you are talking Type A (play on the obstructed runner) or Type B (no play on the obstructed runner) Obstruction. The fielder's INTENT is irrelevant. That pivotal issue has 2 parts - (a) was the runner impeded and (b) was he making a legitimate attempt to advance. The distance a runner is impeded in his advance isn't an issue for the INITIAL decision. Obstruction is an illegal act and carries a penalty of at least the base for which the runner was trying at the time of the obstruction, even for Type B Obstruction.

The fact in the Knoblauch/Zeile incident is that if they fielded the ball to 2nd base to get Knoblauch "by a mile", then it was TYPE A Obstruction anyway, and the penalty is always the next base after the point of obstruction. The second case sounds like it was Type B Obstruction with no legitimate attempt to advance, and the penalty is the base for which the runner was trying at the time of obstruction. That was probably still 1st base, even though he had rounded it when obstructed. If the umpire had adjudged there was a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd base in the second case, or that a play was being made on that runner at the time, then that runner would also have been entitled to 2nd base, irrespective of his return to 1st base. Type B obstruction will ALWAYS result in the runner being awarded at least the base for which he was legitimately trying at the time of the obstruction. The award ONLY becomes a feet and inches judgement AFTER the initially protected base has been passed.

Jim, none of this has ANYTHING to do with INTENT on obstruction on the part of the fielder, so why raise it? Are you suggesting that the official has to judge the runner's INTENT in deciding obstruction? If so, the only INTENT the runner has to show is a legitimate attempt to advance. A runner going out of his way to bump into a fielder is hardly showing a legitimate attempt to advance.

Cheers,

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The only INITIAL judgement with Obstruction is did the fielder impede the runner's legitimate attempt to advance. That applies whether you are talking Type A (play on the obstructed runner) or Type B (no play on the obstructed runner) Obstruction. The fielder's INTENT is irrelevant. That pivotal issue has 2 parts - (a) was the runner impeded and (b) was he making a legitimate attempt to advance. The distance a runner is impeded in his advance isn't an issue for the INITIAL decision. Obstruction is an illegal act and carries a penalty of at least the base for which the runner was trying at the time of the obstruction, even for Type B Obstruction.

The fact in the Knoblauch/Zeile incident is that if they fielded the ball to 2nd base to get Knoblauch "by a mile", then it was TYPE A Obstruction anyway, and the penalty is always the next base after the point of obstruction. The second case sounds like it was Type B Obstruction with no legitimate attempt to advance, and the penalty is the base for which the runner was trying at the time of obstruction. That was probably still 1st base, even though he had rounded it when obstructed. If the umpire had adjudged there was a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd base in the second case, or that a play was being made on that runner at the time, then that runner would also have been entitled to 2nd base, irrespective of his return to 1st base. Type B obstruction will ALWAYS result in the runner being awarded at least the base for which he was legitimately trying at the time of the obstruction. The award ONLY becomes a feet and inches judgement AFTER the initially protected base has been passed.

Jim, none of this has ANYTHING to do with INTENT on obstruction on the part of the fielder, so why raise it? Are you suggesting that the official has to judge the runner's INTENT in deciding obstruction? If so, the only INTENT the runner has to show is a legitimate attempt to advance. A runner going out of his way to bump into a fielder is hardly showing a legitimate attempt to advance.

Cheers,

Actually, what I believe I was considering is whether or not the player makes a legitimate attempt to advance. I realize Knoblauch is protected into second and it has nothing to do with the closeness of the play. What I was thinking might be intelligent for the batter-runner is to advance to second once there is any contact. Does this not make obvious the intent? In other words if I am Knoblauch in that case and considering his was impeded by Zeile only minimally (enough to be obstruction but not to cause any real delay in advancing to second)wouldn't I be smart to continue to second and in essence force the umpire to make the call thereby getting an extra base I never would have attempted not gotten if there had been no obstruction? Jim/NY

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
Actually, what I believe I was considering is whether or not the player makes a legitimate attempt to advance. I realize Knoblauch is protected into second and it has nothing to do with the closeness of the play. What I was thinking might be intelligent for the batter-runner is to advance to second once there is any contact. Does this not make obvious the intent? In other words if I am Knoblauch in that case and considering his was impeded by Zeile only minimally (enough to be obstruction but not to cause any real delay in advancing to second)wouldn't I be smart to continue to second and in essence force the umpire to make the call thereby getting an extra base I never would have attempted not gotten if there had been no obstruction?

The runner who deliberately advances with no real possibility of reaching the subsequent base is risking an umpire's judgement as to whether the attempt to advance was legitimate. I might rule it was NOT a legitimate attempt to advance, if I adjudged the runner only proceeded because he was contacted (however slightly). Mind you, that's a pretty tough call to make. It is also one I wouldn't expect to have to make in any Type A obstruction situation. No sensible batter-runner is going to exchange an easy base hit for a potential tag out when there is a play already in the process of being made on him at the advance base! It just won't happen! The short answer is NO, it would NOT be "intelligent" play.

With a legitimate attempt to advance, however, the fielder shouldn't be in that position unless he is at the point of the play on the runner, and if by being there when he shouldn't be he gives that runner this opportunity then that's just too bad. He's obstructed the runner, the automatic penalty is the next base, and no other judgement is required. If, OTOH, the runner has to deviate from his course to contact the fielder first then there is NO WAY that gets to be a legitimate attempt to advance OR even obstruction of any kind. The fielder didn't impede the runner. Instead the runner deliberately deviated into the fielder! The correct mechanic here is to point at the contact and verbalize "That's NOTHING!", or maybe even to call "That's Interference!" if the throw is enroute and near enough to the fielder when the contact is made.

Cheers,

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The runner who deliberately advances with no real possibility of reaching the subsequent base is risking an umpire's judgement as to whether the attempt to advance was legitimate. I might rule it was NOT a legitimate attempt to advance, if I adjudged the runner only proceeded because he was contacted (however slightly). Mind you, that's a pretty tough call to make. It is also one I wouldn't expect to have to make in any Type A obstruction situation. No sensible batter-runner is going to exchange an easy base hit for a potential tag out when there is a play already in the process of being made on him at the advance base! It just won't happen! The short answer is NO, it would NOT be "intelligent" play.

With a legitimate attempt to advance, however, the fielder shouldn't be in that position unless he is at the point of the play on the runner, and if by being there when he shouldn't be he gives that runner this opportunity then that's just too bad. He's obstructed the runner, the automatic penalty is the next base, and no other judgement is required...
Cheers,

Warren,

Would you agree than that when in doubt the call should favor the runner? I think Zeile was in a place he shouldn't have been i.e. the general area of the runner's basepath. Thanks again for the timely, thought-provoking response on what I think is a rare call in major league baseball but more common in lower level ball. [For brevity I snipped your original post but kept the Cheers] Good Day Jim/NY

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
Would you agree than that when in doubt the call should favor the runner? I think Zeile was in a place he shouldn't have been i.e. the general area of the runner's basepath. Thanks again for the timely, thought-provoking response on what I think is a rare call in major league baseball but more common in lower level ball.

No. The premise, in this case, is that you have a suspicion the runner was NOT making legitimate attempt to advance. The strength of that suspicion should govern. There are those who equally believe "when in doubt, call them out"! I don't know that either tenet is more or less valid. I'd prefer to make a simple judgement at the time, and follow the dictum "you had to see it to call it"!

Cheers,