I have not seen this play, but it crossed my mind recently and I was wondering how I should call it.

OBR. Nobody on. Abel gets a hit to right-center, where F9 cuts the ball off on one hop and fires it in toward F6 at 2B. Though Abel has no apparent chance at 2B, he takes his usual aggressive turn around 1B and trips over F3's foot. As the ball is coming in, Abel begins to return to 1B. However, the ball gets away from F6, and Abel tries for 2B but is out.

Would you award Abel 2B on the OBS, or would you let the out stand? Or would you (as in softball) send Abel back to 1B?

<i> Originally posted by greymule </i>


<b> I have not seen this play, but it crossed my mind recently and I was wondering how I should call it.

OBR. Nobody on. Abel gets a hit to right-center, where F9 cuts the ball off on one hop and fires it in toward F6 at 2B. Though Abel has no apparent chance at 2B, he takes his usual aggressive turn around 1B and trips over F3's foot. </b>

In OBR this is TYPE "B" OBS. So as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, You have to ask yourself one question

Absent the OBS what base <b> IF ANY </b> do you protect the runner to.

Therefore, you could have 2 different outcomes in the aforementioned play dependent upon the judgement of the umpire (which is the reason I prefer the FED ruling)

Outcome Number 1 - The umpire protected R1 to first base only. If that's the case then the out at second base stands.

Outcome Number 2 - The umpire judged that absent the OBS R1 would have reached second, then the out call is cancelled and R1 is awarded second base.

In FED, the runner is going to get at least second base.

Pete Booth

I know Fed is different. Pete's explanation is what I figured was correct, even though the umpire can only guess what Abel would have done or where he would have been absent the OBS.

If after tripping Abel had continued toward 2B and been put out, I guess it would be type A OBS—Abel was being played upon—and Abel would be awarded 2B, regardless of by how much he was out.

I agree with Pete's diagnosis. This is clearly HTBT, but based on grey's description I think I would go with Pete's option B and award the runner 2B.

F3 has interrupted the flow of the play, and the defense incurs a heavy burden at that point. The standard of the rule is to award the obstructed runner a base in order to "nullify" the obstruction. So if I think the chances of BR reaching 2B were near 50-50 or better, I'll give him 2B. On the other hand, if BR was out by 15 feet - or caught in a rundown - then I'd likely let the out stand.

If you have judged that BR is only to be protected to first, and he does make the attempt of second, and is caught in a rundown and tagged out going back to first, is he still to be afforded protection back to first?

Thanks,

Tim.

<b>If you have judged that BR is only to be protected to first, and he does make the attempt of second, and is caught in a rundown and tagged out going back to first, is he still to be afforded protection back to first?</b>

In ASA softball, he would be sent back to 1B, even if he's out by a ridiculous margin at 2B. In Fed baseball, he would get 2B automatically on the initial trip.

But in OBR, this situation and its variations are problematic to me. If we don't think Abel originally had a chance for 2B, and therefore we protect him only back to 1B on the initial trip, then his break for 2B starts a new play. Consequently, we also have to call Abel out if after the ball gets away he runs a couple of steps toward 2B but then sees that he won't make it, and tries to return to 1B but is tagged. His protection back to 1B ended when he made a move toward 2B.

It the "interruption of the flow of the play" that is really at issue, I think.

Greymule,

I like your quote at the end of each of your posts. I think Willie Nelson said it better in his song:

" Whiskey for my men - Beer for my horses!"

LOL - Tim.

It the "interruption of the flow of the play" that is really at issue, I think

It seems to me you have an two plays to content with.
BR rounded first base and tripped over F3's foot. He is protected to return because as you described he was making a turn toward second so that he may advance if F9 does not field the ball correctly. After the trip, he gets up to return, and would have been safe with or with out the obstrcution call -no harm no foul. End of play #1. When the ball is throw away he attempts to advances to second, (play #2) IMO, he advanced at his own risk.

Isn't this the same logic used for base awards? For example, B1 is awarded first on ball 4, then attempts to advance beyond the base and is tagged out. He did this at his own risk.

What is the difference?

greymule,

In placing runners on an OBR Type B obstruction call, there is a concept which I believe is commonly referred to as "post-obstruction evidence". That is, at the time of the obstruction the umpire makes an <i>initial</i> judgement of to what base he will award/protect the obstructed runner. As play continues, the umpire may <b>change</b> his judgement of the "protected to" base depending on <b>any</b> aspect of the ensuing action.

In your sitch, the umpire might initially judge that the BR was only protected back to 1B. When the throw from F9 to F6 was not cleanly fielded, he might then change his protection to 2B. Alternatively, he might decide that the BR would have been out at 2B (despite the errant throw) and still only protect the BR to 1B.

Pete Booth has given you the succinct summary of the umpire's most likely options in your play. It is entirely up to the umpire's judgement what protection/award will "nullify the act of obstruction".

The following is from the MLBUM discussion of Type B Obstruction.

JM

In this case the runner had no chance at 2B, absent the obstruction, so as soon as he turned back toward 1B, he is on his own. If thrown out at 2B, so be it.

So the obstruction call would only protect him to first base? It wouldn't automatically award him 2nd?

The interpretation in the major leagues is different now. From the BRD, Section 33:
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font color=maroon><b>Fifth and deciding game of the NLCS, 14 Oct, 2002: Benito Santiago (San Francisco) is on first with 2 outs in a scoreless game. David Bell hits for extra bases. Santiago makes third, rounds the bag, and runs into Miguel Cairo (St. Louis), the third baseman. “That’s obstruction!” yells the third-base umpire, Jeff Nelson. Santiago stops his advance and returns safely to third. Ruling: Santiago is “awarded” third, which is the base he made on his own.

Note: That outcome sets, for the time being, the philosophy of Major League Baseball regarding protecting a runner to an advance base during Type (b) obstruction. The criterion to apply, according to Nelson and his supervisor Steve Palermo, is this: The umpire must be <i>certain</i> the runner would have achieved his advance base or he will protect him only to the retreat base.

Nelson: “The throw came in and I knew what it had to be. I was positive that Santiago was not going to make home plate on the play. I have to be 100% sure that he's going to get home before I can give it to him. <i>So I placed him on third base</i>.” [BRD emphasis]</BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"></font></b>It's not what I was taught. But then I was also taught that if I kicked a call at first, I shouldn't go whining to my partner, asking for help.

I thank everyone for their thoughtful responses. I can accept the argument that because Abel had no chance for 2B at the time of the OBS, his protection extends back to 1B only. After Abel recovers from the trip, as soon as he does something other than try to return to the base he would have made (such as run toward 2B), his protection ends. Abel is out at 2B unless I am certain he would have made it absent the OBS. I don't try to discern the effect of the interruption of the flow of the play.

In the BRD play, if Santiago had continued toward home after the OBS, he would have been liable to be put out. He was protected back to 3B only if he did not try to advance.

This starts to get into territory covered by the J/R, which describes situations in which it recommends ignoring OBS when it has no bearing on the play.