1) Runner on 2nd base takes lead to steal 3rd. SS runs between runner and second and stands directly in front of runner. In the split second that SS blocked the view of the pitcher the runner was thrown out. This was a rehearsed play as it was used by the same team in an earlier game. Legal???

2) Same situation only as the SS passes in front of the runner, the runner takes off to 3rd. The SS passes in front of the runner as he's trying to get back to his position and they collide. The runner is thrown out. Obstruction?

If F6 stops (or moves to maintain position in the line-of-sight), you have a case for visual obstruction. If F6 runs past / in-front of R2, it's nothing.

Quote:

2) Same situation only as the SS passes in front of the runner, the runner takes off to 3rd. The SS passes in front of the runner as he's trying to get back to his position and they collide. The runner is thrown out. Obstruction?

Obstruction.

Just a comment about this one: i had the same exact situation, only the SS caught the throw and tagged out the runner... the play is legal in this case.

I agree with obstruction per last scenario but for the first I have nothing either way. Please give me a rule citation for VISUAL obstruction as it pertains to a defensive player setting up in the line of sight between the pitcher and baserunner. None in my rule book that I can find.

If R2 is so dumb as to remain in a stationary posistion without a view of pitcher while off the base he deserves to get picked off.

BTW: How does that hinder R2 from advancing or going back to second? That is what definition of obstruction requires.

The devil rays lost a game to the mariners last year on visual obstruction in the 9th.

From J/R: "It is obstruction if a fielder intentionally impedes a runner (e.g., trips, pins, grabs or tackles him, blocks vision, etc.)." This is not in the rule book, but it's an interpretation. The key to this is umpire's judgement on what is intentional. From the scenario described it sounds like a planned play, thus intentional.

Actually the Rays won on this play, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, other than they weren't dead last. This year will be back to normal.

<b>The devil rays lost a game to the mariners last year on visual obstruction in the 9th.</b>

Yes, I saw the game and the play. The ejection of the manager was a predictable consequence.

<b>From J/R: "It is obstruction if a fielder intentionally impedes a runner (e.g., trips, pins, grabs or tackles him, blocks vision, etc.)." This is not in the rule book, but it's an interpretation. The key to this is umpire's judgement on what is intentional. From the scenario described it sounds like a planned play, thus intentional.</b>

J/R while a most helpful publication is not an official MLB case book. It has contained some interpretations that conflict with others and, as in this case, some that are not universally accepted by professionals. I believe the jury may still out on "visual" obstruction, especially in a scenario such as this in which the runner can merely and safely adjust.

I remember watching the Subway Series a few years ago between the Mets and the Yankees. Whenever the Mets had a left-hander on the mound, Todd Zeile, the Mets' first baseman, would stray off the bag and always align himself between the runner taking his leadoff, and the pitcher - making if very difficult for the runner to see the pitcher.

I remember asking Carl if this was legal. He said it was because there is an element of risk the defense is taking in this tactic. The first baseman will have to get back to the bag and the risk of an errant throw is increased.

As you've noted, if <i>another</i> fielder takes the throw while one fielder is purposely screening the runner - that would be different.

So, in the case at hand, if the SS screens the runner while the 2nd baseman takes the throw. Hmmmm - what do you think?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Interesting comment. Even if the comment did come from Carl, I think we'd all be shocked to learn that a certain act by a fielder is deemed legal only because it entails some risk on the fielder's part.

Either it's legal, or it's not legal. There's no way this is legal due to the reason you state.