Visual Obstruction

[harmbu]

I have looked over the book for this one and I have been unable to find anything. In a Fed game an umpire told me that if my shortstop cuts between the runner on a pickoff play and the runner is subsequently picked off by the pitcher and second baseman, the shortstop could be called for visual obstruction.

I am not saying this is not true, but I can't find a reference anywhere. Any Fed rule references would be greatly appreciated.

[UmpJM]

harmbu,

This is a "point not covered" in the FED rules. The BRD (section 341) suggests treating as NCAA does. Following is the text of the applicable NCAA rule:

f. Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner’s opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play.

PENALTY for f.— The umpire shall point and call “That’s
obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play continue until all play
has ceased, call time and award any bases that are justified in
Rule 2. If a runner(s) advances beyond what the umpire would
have granted and is put out, the runner(s) is out. The offender’s
team shall be warned, and a second offense by that team shall
result in the ejection of the offending player because of an
unsportsmanlike act.

There is also the following from the MLBUM in the "Approved Rulings" section under Obstruction:

(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman, rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire's judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner's view of the pitcher.

Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 4.03(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder's actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner's view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection.

There was an MLB game in 2004 (Seattle vs. Tampa Bay) where this principle was applied in calling Obstruction on the SS who "intentionally" blocked a "tagging" R3's view of the F9's catch of a potential Sac fly. (I thought it was Type B, but it was ruled Type A.)

So, there is not an explicit rule in FED. There is ample precedent for calling it. It makes sense to me.

JM

[harmbu]

Thanks for the information. But how do I show someone that there is no such thing as visual obstruction? It is difficult to prove a negative.

[BigUmp56]

I think you might be confusing what you're being told here. PWL pointed out that in this play there's no visual obstruction, that's not to say there's no such thing as visual obstruction. I think John gave you a decent example of what could be considered visual obstruction in a given situation. It boils down to the umpires judgment. If he feels the defensive player intentionally interfered with the runners ability to see the ball then he's right to call it.


Tim.