Happened yesterday. Batter hits into gap in right center. On his way past 2nd, short stop that was covering 2nd, backs into batter runner. Out fielders still chasing down ball. Batter runner misses 2nd, because of the obstruction, and continues for a stand up triple. I had signaled delayed obstruction, apaently no one knew what the signal meant and no one noticed the missed base. If he had not made it to third I would have inforced the obsruction, and put him on third. Being he missed 2nd, and if some one would have appealed, what shoud I have done?

What level?
 

If you are talking about Federation rules, you might have an interesting situation. Or even in the other codes you could have an appeal. I do not think a missed base is allowed no matter if you have obstruction or not. I still think you are required to touch all bases, but I will have to look this up for sure.

Interesting question. :confused:

No he's still required to touch all bases. If he goes back and touches it just makes the obstuction an easier call. Rut makes an interesting point. In a FED game you automaticly call missed bases. Which do you enforce, I'm not sure. I think you have to call the out but I am willing to hear arguements. In an OBR game you pray nobody saw it.

Per 4.22 of NAPBL :
<i>(2) The second type of obstruction (Official Rule 7.06(b)) deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while no play
is being made on him. <b>Examples of this type of obstruction include:</b>
1. Batter-runner is obstructed in rounding first base on a base hit while ball is in the outfield.
2. Batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first base on a ball hit to the outfield.
3. Runner from first steals second; catcher's throw is wild and goes into center field; runner is obstructed in attempting to
advance to third base. Ball is loose in outfield when obstruction occurs.
4. Runner from second is obstructed while rounding third base on a bit to the outfield.
<b>5. Any other example where no play is being made directly on the runner <u>at the moment he is obstructed. </u></b>
Under this section of the obstruction rule, the obstruction is to be signaled by the umpire pointing laterally at the obstruction
while calling loudly and clearly, "That's obstruction." The ball is not dead, however, and the umpire shall allow play to
continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible. <b>At that moment, he shall call "Time" and impose such
penalties, if any, <u>that in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.</u> </b>It is important to note that in cases occurring under
this section of the obstruction rule, the umpire shall not call "Time" until all action has ceased and no further play is possible.</i>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Based upon this, since no direct play is being made upon the runner <b>at the moment he is obstructed</b>, this would be type B obstruction allowing play to continue. My judgement in the penalty phase allows me to nullify the act of obstruction. Therefore, I nullify the missed base, since the obstruction caused it, and will not honor the appeal.

Note: Had this been type A obstruction where direct play is made upon the runner at the moment of obstruction, I would award him any base I thought he could obtain but would have to award a minimum of 1 base. The runner WOULD be required to touch any missed bases under type A obstruction.

Just my opinion,

Steve

Oooh, I don't know, that's a very iffy interpretation, Steve. "Penalties" refers to an award of bases and nullification of outs. As you know, an award of bases NEVER removes the responsibility of the runners to touch the bases in order. Revising history to say that the runner DID touch the bag just because of obstruction doesn't really qualify, in my interpretation. Remember, the rules state that "A RUN (or SCORE) is the score made by an offensive player who advances from batter to runner and touches first, second, third and home bases in that order" (OBR 2.00). The other rules that cover missed bases only tell us how and when to enforce 2.00 RUN. Your interpretation simply creates an exception to 2.00 RUN that I don't think the rules allow.

P-Sz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Quote:

Oooh, I don't know, that's a very iffy interpretation, Steve. "Penalties" refers to an award of bases and nullification of outs. As you know, an award of bases NEVER removes the responsibility of the runners to touch the bases in order. Revising history to say that the runner DID touch the bag just because of obstruction doesn't really qualify, in my interpretation. Remember, the rules state that "A RUN (or SCORE) is the score made by an offensive player who advances from batter to runner and touches first, second, third and home bases in that order" (OBR 2.00). The other rules that cover missed bases only tell us how and when to enforce 2.00 RUN. Your interpretation simply creates an exception to 2.00 RUN that I don't think the rules allow. P-Sz

Patrick,

Are you seriously telling me that you'd uphold an appeal for a missed base when the defense's illegal act <b>caused</b> the runner to miss the base?

Say it ain't so!

I'm with Steve on this one - <b>EXCEPT</b> I wouldn't require the runner to touch a missed base caused by the defense's illegal act <b>even</b> under Type A obstruction!

C'mon guys! Don't let the defense benefit for doing something illegal. That just ain't kosher.

Jim.
 

Let me ask you this. Are we not going to award bases for the obstruction, no matter how bad? But does that still give the runner the right to completely avoid the base no matter what the obstruction prevented?

Let us say the 2nd baseman was blocking the base and simply prevented the runner from touching 2nd base. Now, the runner goes to 3rd and gets picked off in a close bang bang play. Now if the runner just completely avoided the base and started going to third, would we not give them third if they touched first base or not? My point is, how much leeway are we going to give the runner despite the obstruction?

And better yet, is there a casebook ruling on this type of play in any code?

Re: Jim.
 

I dunno. To me, this is a no-brainer. I don't understand how you guys arrive at your conclusions.

The defense obstructs the runner in such a way that the runner could not touch the base. Y'all would make your decision to protect or award, and then you would call the poor guy out on appeal for missing the very same base that he couldn't get to because of the obstruction?

Yipes. I'd have to call in the West Greenwich, RI Riot Squad to get me off the field if I made that call here, lemme tell you.

I could not locate where JEA specifically addresses issue.

Authoritative opinion of J/R:

<b>Ruling on Obstruction
When obstruction occurs, the umpire must determine immediately whether or not a play
was being made on the runner at the moment he was obstructed (review: definition of
"play," Chapter 2, p. 11). If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of
his miss of such base cannot be upheld.</b>

I'll stand by my first post.

Just my opinion,

Steve

4.09 has an exception if fans rush the field and physically prevent a game winning run from scoring, the umpire awards the base.

There is also an exception for sliding bases, if the base is moved from it's normal location the runner is only required to touch the space originally marked by the base. (7.08c)

Suppose runner is obstructed and prevented from touching 2B. He continues to third. Play ends and umpire calls time to enforce the obstruction. During the dead ball he is prevented from returning to second base, correct? There has to be an exception.

I'm ignoring it, but if he was required to touch the base, then I'd tell the runner when I enforced the penalty. "Runner was prevented from touching 2B. Runner, go touch 2nd base and proceed to third."

That quote from J/R helps out a lot, even though it doesn't really come directly from a rulebook.

My thought: When the defense throws the ball out of play, we still require the runner to touch/retouch all bases properly. By the same analogy, the runner should do whatever it takes (short of physically forcing the issue) to touch a base, even when obstructed. I, the umpire, will award the bases to compensate for the obstruction, of course giving the runner benefit of the doubt.

I agree, though, I hate to penalize the runner for a sequence of events originated by an illegal action by the defense.

P-Sz

Look at Fed 8.2.1 situation C page 51 of the case book and Fed 8-2-5. I believe that the obstructed runner needs to touch all the bases or he can be called out. If he is on or beyond a succeeding base at the time the ball becomes dead, he can't return to the base he missed. However, in the situation that you described, I personally would be hesitant to call the batter out even though the rules say you should. I think that you could make a better argument that the obstruction caused the runner to miss the bag. But this argument doesn't appear to be in the Fed rule book. I would definately honor the obstruction because common sense dictates that that is the right thing to do.

Greg

Upone further consideration, I yield that an appeal of a base missed due solely to obstruction cannot be upheld. It's only fair, after all, and the Jaksa/Roder quote clinches it.

Now I wonder if I'll even have an obstruction call this year, let alone a missed base due to obstruction.

P-Sz

The ridiculous to prove the point
 

Using fed rules:

What would you call if the F4 went over to 2B and bent over the bag and put his body over the bag to prevent R1 from touching 2B. R1 cannot touch the bag without hurting F4 so R1 comes close to touching the bag and heads to 3B.

My guess is that enforcing the automatic out would cause a huge ****house.

I hope the original situation never happens to me but if it does and defensive skipper comes out, I'm going to tell him, "Coach, the obstruction came before the missed base therefore we a penalizing the first infraction which caused the second infraction."

Just my opinion.

Re: The ridiculous to prove the point
 

That isn't so ridiculous, becuase the fundamentals of the situation haven't changed; that example is indeed illustrative of this issue.

P-Sz