obstruction - award a base?

[peter_s_n]

An odd(?) play I saw - Little League. (I was 'spectator')
Batter hits ball to third/short and overruns first with no intent to go to second. The throw from third goes by the first baseman. The second baseman, attempting to back up the throw, collides with and unintentionally trips the baserunner during the 'overrun'. The ball ended up against the fence, the runner ended up face down on the foul line, and play stopped.
Additional info: Left field should have backed up this throw. (kind of odd for the second baseman to be backing up this throw). The second baseman was running and stretching for the throw and ran right through the baserunner approximately 10-15 feet up the foul line from the bag.
It is questionable as to whether the batter-runner would have made it to second base as the ball settled against the fence near the collision.
I've looked at LL Rule 7.06(a)stating that the obstructed runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out to the base they would have reached if in the umpire's judgement there had been no obstruction.
Section 2 defines obstruction as 'the act of a fielder, while not in possession, or not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of the runner.'
I believe the batter-runner to have been obstructed. (is backing up the throw the same as fielding the ball - I think not).
The second baseman (the 'obstructor'), may have been able to pickup the misthrow against the fence to throw the batter-runner out had the batter-runner decided to go. (The right fielder was no-where near the play).
Seems the only thing keeping the runner at first would be 'if in the umpire's judgement' - as it was questionable whether the runner would have made it to second.
The play was not questioned by anybody on the field, therefore the game proceeded without incident.
Could this have been obstruction without no penalty ? It was a trainwreck.

[Carl Childress]

Peter:

This is why baseball is so fascinating. Yours is a question I cannot recall discussing during my entire career.

Question: Can a batter-runner run through the bag (no attempt to advance) and be obstructed?

My initial thought was: Yes. (The second baseman certainly clipped him.) The protected base is: First. (He made no effort to advance.)

But first base is "protected" anyway because the BR can overrun with impunity following a batted ball.

So, thinking again, I'd say the BR cannot be obstructed unless he makes an effort to advance PRIOR to the obstruction. (Trick plays would abound if he could draw a base AFTER some fielder bumped him slightly.)

I can be persuaded in either direction, but I'm tending now to believe it is a trainwreck. After all, that often happens between BR and F3 in the vicinity of first. Why should F4 be any different?

I look forward to other replies.

[whiskers_ump]

JMO,

I feel that in your post from the way you
described the events, with BR not attempting
to advance, we merely have an unavoidable
collision with ball, 2B and BR reaching same
point at same time as stated 10-15 feet beyond
1B. Like Carl, I look froward to other replies.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

I can be persuaded in either direction, but I'm tending now to believe it is a trainwreck. After all, that often happens between BR and F3 in the vicinity of first. Why should F4 be any different?

I look forward to other replies.

Of course the difference between a trainwreck with BR and the F4 running to backup a throw vs. a trainwreck between F3 and BR is that F3 is attempting to glove a ball that has been thrown to him. There is a degree of immunity provided F3 in that instance due to that factor. F4, in the situation described, is not attempting to glove a thrown ball and qualifies for no such immunity from obstruction.

Originally posted by Carl Childress

So, thinking again, I'd say the BR cannot be obstructed unless he makes an effort to advance PRIOR to the obstruction. (Trick plays would abound if he could draw a base AFTER some fielder bumped him slightly.)

I suppose the question here is whether BR is advancing. He was advancing to 1st, we all know that. He continued running 10-15 ft. before being contacted. That is but a few steps while running. Is he still advancing? He's still moving forward, right, in HIS basepath (as defined by the rules). I would think so until such time as he stops and freely retreats to 1st base as allowed per rule. We have all seen situations where an overthrown ball allows BR to turn and continue to 2nd base after BR has overrun 1st base, haven't we. BR, in the situation under discussion, was not provided that opportunity here because of F4's obstruction. Keep in mind, it is F4's responsibility to avoid BR, not the other way around.
F4, IMO, has obstructed BR.

Next judgement that comes into play is whether the ump judges BR would have attempted advancement toward 2nd base had it not been for the obstruction. I cite the following plays from JEA:

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field, slows down as the right fielder prepares to throw the ball into 2nd base, and then bumps into the 1st baseman who is not paying attention to the runner while the throw is going to 2nd .
Ruling: Since the runner was not making a legitimate effort to advance to second, this should not be considered type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The obstruction should be signaled and then enforced under the penalty provided by 7.0(b)... umpire's judgment.

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field. The 1st baseman is not paying attention and obstructs the B-R as he rounds 1st. In the umpire’s judgment, the B-R was going to try for 2nd. The throw to second is perfect and, most likely, the B-R would have been put out.
Ruling: Regardless of the B-R's chances to reach 2nd safely, the defensive team is obligated to allow unimpeded progress on the base path. In this case, the 1st baseman is guilty of type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The B-R is awarded 2nd (at least one base)...the penalty provided under 7.06(a).

So, the question is really rather the official calling the play thought the runner may continue to 2nd base. Certainly that would be based on the location of the ball after the overthrow, the location of the fielder's chasing the errant throw, and perhaps even the speed of the runner (a bull vs. a jackrabbit).

IMO, if I feel certain either way in this part of the judgement as to whether or not BR would have attempted advance to 2nd base, the call is then very easy to make. However, if I am uncertain as to whether I think the runner may have gone, then I favor the offense providing them the benefit of any doubt. They have done nothing wrong in this play to come out on the short end of the call. The defense has---they tripped up the BR when they were responsible to avoid him. The defense erred in their performance and were the potential violators of the rule. The defense will not receive any benefit of the doubt from me.

Bottom line in this situation, if I judge BR would possibly have broken for 2nd had it not been for the obstruction, I am awarding him 2nd base under rule 7.06(a).

Just my opinion,

Freix

[JJ]

I second that motion. If it was a situation where I felt the runner, seeing the ball go by the first baseman and toward the fence, could have made it to second had there been no "obstruction", that's what I award him. If I don't, what's to stop any fielder from "obstructing" a runner not trying to advance in order to GUARANTEE that he won't advance in the event of a badly thrown ball?

I would say make it a type B obtuction and either protect him back to first or to second depending where everything lands. If it's a park that has tons of foul territory then he's probably going to second. If it's a tight field I'm keeping him at first.

Now change the play just a little. The throw is coming from third but up the line so the F4 goes for the back up immediately. He has a good chance of gloving the ball before it gets to the fence and they collide on the overrun. Is he now fielding or are you still protecting him.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
I second that motion. If it was a situation where I felt the runner, seeing the ball go by the first baseman and toward the fence, could have made it to second had there been no "obstruction", that's what I award him. If I don't, what's to stop any fielder from "obstructing" a runner not trying to advance in order to GUARANTEE that he won't advance in the event of a badly thrown ball?

JJ: I reckon the answer to your question is 2.00 Obstruction:

Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of a runner.

Now, if "advancing" in your play means making "prgress" in the mind (Hell, I think I might try for second), then you got me, for sure.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor
I would say make it a type B obtuction and either protect him back to first or to second depending where everything lands. If it's a park that has tons of foul territory then he's probably going to second. If it's a tight field I'm keeping him at first.

Now change the play just a little. The throw is coming from third but up the line so the F4 goes for the back up immediately. He has a good chance of gloving the ball before it gets to the fence and they collide on the overrun. Is he now fielding or are you still protecting him.

Now, Mike:

If it's obstruction, the runner must go to second. You can't protect him back to first; he's ALREADY protected to first.

On the McGriff's Board we discussed a play where a runner was obstructed at third and later tagged out 5 feet from home. In other words, he advanced 85 feet after the obstruction; and someone argued that -- in and of itself -- did not prove intent to advance! And the runner, therefore, could be out.

Here's the key to an obstruction call:

It is obstruction if a fielder who is not protected impedes or hinders the advance or return of a runner during a fair or catchable batted ball or during a thrown ball. (J/R, 70)

"Might have advanced" isn't good enough. After all, I was castigated in harsh terms for thinking that an actual advance of 85 feet was -- an advance!

Of course, the second baseman HAS hindered B1's return to first.

Who cares? B1 can't be out at first.

Now, one could argue -- as Osborne might -- that the PC call is obstruction because that's what everybody expects. I myself believe that's often the proper thing to do. In 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game, I point that out as the number one blunder: Making an unusual call on a routine play. In effect, the best call is often the expected call.

But then, with R2, when the pitcher picks up his non-pivot foot and slowly turns toward second, stopping half way, the fans always scream: "Balk!" Sometimes umpires just have to make the right call.

Concerning your second play: The throw is from behind the runner, F4 backs up the play, the ball is over-thrown, and as F4 goes to pick up the ball, B1 -- legally over-running the base -- smacks him, preventing the play.

Train wreck, no? Each participant is where he's supposed to be, doing what he's supposed to be doing. F4 has a perfect right to back up a throw ro F3. B1 has a perfect right to over-run the base, for that's central to the philosophy of producing close plays at first.

Somehow, in the last few years, in games played by amateurs everyone has begun to find obstruction and interference everywhere. Contact on the diamond is inevitable. When it is illegal, penalize it. But only when it's illegal.

As Henry Fonda said in Twelve Angry Men, "We're not convinced. We want to hear more."

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Train wreck, no? Each participant is where he's supposed to be, doing what he's supposed to be doing. F4 has a perfect right to back up a throw ro F3. B1 has a perfect right to over-run the base, for that's central to the philosophy of producing close plays at first.

Somehow, in the last few years, in games played by amateurs everyone has begun to find obstruction and interference everywhere. Contact on the diamond is inevitable. When it is illegal, penalize it. But only when it's illegal.

As Henry Fonda said in Twelve Angry Men, "We're not convinced. We want to hear more."

Sometimes, Carl, it is more difficult to determine the cause of the trainwreck, particularly when both individuals have the need to occupy the same space. Take the following example that I posted in a different forum:

R1 with groundball to F5. R1 approaching 2nd feels he'll be out on force and doesn't slide, steps on 2nd base, but continues running past the base a couple steps. F4 muffs throw from F5. R1, in his attempt to retreat, loses footing and falls, yet is trying to scramble back to 2nd on his hands and knees. After F4 muffs ball, it drops toward left field side of base halfway between 2nd base and runner. As runner is attempting to scramble, F4 dives for ball allowing his body to rollblock R1 into the ground (shoulder hit plus complete body roll thereafter) resulting in a definite crunch of R1 facedown into the dirt. Although F4 reached for the ball, it was apparent his primary concern was to keep the runner off the base through use of his own body. After his body roll, F4 puts tag on R1.

Both players had to occupy same space. Is this considered incidental contact with F4 being allowed to field ball?? Is F4 legally allowed to bodyslam the runner in his attempt to get the ball? Who's to say that if F4 doesn't use his body in his effort to get the ball, that R1 wouldn't be using his body to knock F4 away from the ball as R1 scrambles back to the base?

Is this obstruction???? If so, R1 awarded what base???
This play occurred to my BU partner last Friday.

Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

If it's obstruction, the runner must go to second. You can't protect him back to first; he's ALREADY protected to first.

On the McGriff's Board we discussed a play where a runner was obstructed at third and later tagged out 5 feet from home. In other words, he advanced 85 feet after the obstruction; and someone argued that -- in and of itself -- did not prove intent to advance! And the runner, therefore, could be out.

Here's the key to an obstruction call:

It is obstruction if a fielder who is not protected impedes or hinders the advance or return of a runner during a fair or catchable batted ball or during a thrown ball. (J/R, 70)

"Might have advanced" isn't good enough. After all, I was castigated in harsh terms for thinking that an actual advance of 85 feet was -- an advance!

It is the judgement of the official whether or not he felt the runner may have advanced on the play. You are not required to award 2nd base in this play if you felt the runner was not going to advance as a part of the play.

The situation that was presented to you at McGriff's, Carl, was in refute to your statement that the official MUST award the runner the next base. That refute still exists.

If, as the official, you feel the runner reacts to your obstruction call and runs to 2nd feeling he is "protected" as a result of the obstruction, he is not necessarily protected. It remains your judgement as to whether you felt the runner would have attempted further advance to 2nd base during the play had it not been for the obstruction. That is the determining factor as to whether you protect him to 2nd base.

I was umpiring a game where an overthrown ball to F3 on a pickoff allowed R1 to advance to 2nd base. After slowing down considerably and rounding 2nd he was obstructed by F4 (causing him to fall to ground) which I declared. This runner, however, didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of reaching 3rd base during the original play. After my declaration of obstruction, R1 then recovered and continued toward 3rd base where he was thrown out by maybe 5-8 steps. I had only protected him BACK to 2nd base on the obstruction call since he had slowed down during the play and had no legitimate opportunity of advancing to 3rd base. His advance was a mere result of hearing my declaration and, IMO, trying to force an award to 3B or perhaps to cause another overthrow for further advance. The out stood on the play since he advanced beyond the base to which he was protected.

IMO, you are not required to award one base merely because you called the obstruction. This concept is supported by the JEA quotes of my initial post. Whether he "might have advanced" (per Carl) is part of the official's thought process in determining whether you felt he would have advanced. As stated previously, I provide any benefit of doubt to the offense since it was the defense that was the offending team.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Jul 1st, 2001 at 03:26 PM]

[Gre144]

Originally posted by JJ
I second that motion. If it was a situation where I felt the runner, seeing the ball go by the first baseman and toward the fence, could have made it to second had there been no "obstruction", that's what I award him. If I don't, what's to stop any fielder from "obstructing" a runner not trying to advance in order to GUARANTEE that he won't advance in the event of a badly thrown ball?

I am just curious if we could have called interference? Lets assume that F4 was already in his position to back up the ball and B1 could have easily avoided contact as he passed first base but chose to not move out of the way of the play.

[Gre144]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

R1 with groundball to F5. R1 approaching 2nd feels he'll be out on force and doesn't slide, steps on 2nd base, but continues running past the base a couple steps. F4 muffs throw from F5. R1, in his attempt to retreat, loses footing and falls, yet is trying to scramble back to 2nd on his hands and knees. After F4 muffs ball, it drops toward left field side of base halfway between 2nd base and runner. As runner is attempting to scramble, F4 dives for ball allowing his body to rollblock R1 into the ground (shoulder hit plus complete body roll thereafter) resulting in a definite crunch of R1 facedown into the dirt. Although F4 reached for the ball, it was apparent his primary concern was to keep the runner off the base through use of his own body. After his body roll, F4 puts tag on R1.

Both players had to occupy same space. Is this considered incidental contact with F4 being allowed to field ball?? Is F4 legally allowed to bodyslam the runner in his attempt to get the ball? Who's to say that if F4 doesn't use his body in his effort to get the ball, that R1 wouldn't be using his body to knock F4 away from the ball as R1 scrambles back to the base?

Is this obstruction???? If so, R1 awarded what base???
This play occurred to my BU partner last Friday.

Freix

I can't remember the section but in Fed I believe you would call obstruction on F4 since he is only protected on his initial attempt at the ball not his second attempt. Can someone help me to find the section in Fed where it talks about the fielder being protected only on his initial attempt at the ball?

Greg

Carl:
I was uncertain what to do with that play as were you. My explanation was bad. If there is enough room that I thought he might advance then I would probably give him second. I still think it's a you have to see it. As far as keeping him at first I really stole that from your post. It's not really an award but just keeping his overrun.