Here's a question from the 1996 Texas state umpires' exam.

The runner from second is advancing on a hit when he is obstructed by the third baseman. The runner then trips over the third base and, as he rises, is pushed toward home by the head coach. The umpire will rule:
<blockquote>A. The obstruction balances out the interference. Let the play stand.
B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.
C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.
D. Call the runner out and kill play immediately.</blockquote>As part of the new state curriculum, I am putting together a data bank of about 1000 test questions asked of our umpires over the past 15 years. (Texas doesn't use the NFHS test: too many complaints about trick questions. We don't use their football rules, either.)

I'm editing the questions for form and content. For example, I have to change those that say the umpire calls out the runner for missing second to "calls him out on proper appeal." Etc.

I also have to update the Answer Keys in light of rule changes. Etc.

I've finished about 700 and arrived at the question above. Procedure: I take the test and compare my answers with theirs. I'm doing pretty well. (grin) But my answer for this question differed from theirs.

There hasn't been a relevant rule change, and I don't have any record of arguing with Dotson Lewis about this item. And I don't have my answer sheet from February 1996.

My question, then, is:

Should the "correct" answer be:

B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.

or

C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.

Help convince me that I'm wrong and Dotson was right.

Pick your answer and support it with rules language or standard baseball explication.

FED rules only, of course.

BTW: I picked answer....

Lah, me: You didn't really think I was going to reveal that, did you?

According to FED rules, on obstruction the runner is awarded one base (at a minimum) therefore if the runner was obstructed before he reached third, then touched third and advanced beyond third at his own risk, the obstruction is nullified. From that point, the coach touching him is a delayed dead ball and the runner is out at the end of the play. I would say the answer is C.

Thinking Too Much
 

It's my biggest problem, y'know...

Using the clues from the play:

a.) runner advancing on a hit from second (these usually involve R2 scoring),

b.) an obstruction,

c.) a trip over the base (arguably caused by the obstruction), and

d.) a coach pushing the runner toward home;

lead me to believe that the runner would have scored without the obstruction. The attempted interference in this case would be ignored because of the above reasoning. There is nothing in the rules that says a coach's physical interference supercedes obstruction. I would have to go with (B) not necesarily because it (OBS)happened first but because the INT had no bearing on the play.

Of course, umpire judgment prevails and if the umpire did not feel that the runner would have scored without the obstruction, then I would go with JPC's answer.

D'MAN

I agree with D-MAN if in my judgement the runner would have scored w/o the obstruction. The question should include some clue as to whether the runner had the intent of scoring or rather he was likely to score. If that was the case, B would be the right answer. If we was slowing up to stop at third, C would be the answer.

I agree with jpc that it matters whether R2 was trying to score. But I still say B: protect R2 to 3B or home depending on what he could have done without the obstruction.

I thought "protect" meant R2 has no liability to be put out - and if so, then R2 should not be out for coach's interference, especially in light of the fact that the interference resulted from the obstruction.

I'm not going to read anything into this other than what is provided in the question (ie could he have scored, did he trip because of the obstruction, etc.) so based only on what is provided I would say C is the answer. 2-22-1 would awared the runner 3B on the obstruction, but he continued toward home, after tripping on the bag. Then, 3-2-2 kicks in, since the coach interfered by assisting the runner. Both are delayed dead ball situations so after playing action is over call the runner out.

I could be wrong, but I'm going out on that proverbial limb to say "B" is correct.

My reasoning is simple: The runner started out at second base. He was advancing on a hit. He was obstructed.

There. I am going to award this guy home, because F5 has deprived him of his right to run unimpeded. We'll never know whether or not he would or wouldn't have scored had there been no obstruction. I will make the case that he would have, in my judgment. I have the runner protected to home plate. If they subsequently make a play at home on this runner, I have obstruction and the run scores.

Had there not been obstruction, then I would have coaches interference, and that runner would be out.

You cannot imagine how many umpires I've heard say that after they tanked on a test.

Why is this a "trick question"?

Here's the US Weather Bureau's prediction for conditions in my town today:

<blockquote><font color=navy><b>Partly cloudy in the morning then clearing. Patchy fog in the morning. Windy. Highs in the upper 80s. South winds around 15 mph increasing to 20 to 25 mph in the late morning and afternoon.

Tonight
Mostly clear. Lows in the upper 50s. South winds around 10 mph early in the evening becoming light. </blockquote></font></b>Hey, next weekend we're hosting a USSSA 18u tournament.

Guys and diamondgal: Sorry about gloating. Of course, I admit that tonight's weather is dreadful. Still....

(B)- Would be my choice as well. Unless I had an extremely slow R2 who had no chance of scoring whatsoever, or started to pull up on the bag for some other reason, I'm enforcing the obstruction and avancing R2 to the plate.


Tim.

How could we ignore the coach's interference like this though?

All hits do not result in R2 scoring, it depends on what kind of hit and where. The obstruction in the question was on the 3B man, before he reached the base (he tripped over the base after the obstruction) so the award should be 3B. The question did not lead us any farther than that. The question does not lead us to consider why he tripped, he just tripped. Even if the obstruction caused him to trip does that relieve the 3B coach from a coaches interference penalty? I don't know why it would. This is why I did not want to read more into the question than is there. Don't assume anything that is not specifically mentioned in the question and then rule.

I have to agree with DG here, there is nothing except our imagination that says the runner was able to advance to home. Just that the runner "advances on a hit". A ball hit deep in the hole and thrown late by F6, satisfies this criteria. The batter is credited with a hit, correct.

Therefore the runner acheived the base to which an award would be made. Now, the ball gets away from F3 and Coach helps the runner on the ground and assists him home.

Runner out.

As DG states, reading the question as written, Ans. is C.

OK Carl
 

Give us the answer already.

It's 37 degrees and murky here. I did plant my garlic, though. No baseball.

Did I say please? PPPLLEEEEAAASSSEEEE!?!

My attempt -- I'd call the runner out (answer C).

Obstruction results in an award of one or more bases. In FED an "award" is the right to run without being put out by the defense (there's some phrase near to that in the book). It doesn't absolve the runner of the requirement to run the bases "legally".