Thanks to Ozzy6900 for posting the Fed rule. I think the difference between the Fed rule and the OBR rule is significant in that the Fed rule does not contain the "while not..." exceptions where obstruction is not to be called.

I realize that many umpires wouldn't make the call I did, but I think that I made the right call considering the Fed rule was governing.

Put it this way, in a school ball situation where there is clearly a collision and the BR doesn't reach first base, I'd rather be protested for calling obstruction than for not calling it, because I'm protected by the Fed rule. The way I read the Fed rule, I could lose on a rule interpretation judgement if I don't call it.

If I'm playing "Official" rules, then I'm probably OK either way because I'm given room to make a judgement under the "while not..." clause.

Mike

I can not tell from this description whether obstruction occured or not. If the ball had just gone past F3 when the collision occured then I say "train wreck". If the ball was past him long enough for him to move out of the way and did not, then obstruction. He can't be expected to vanish after attempting a play, and, the BR can see F3 while he is running better than F3 can see BR while trying to catch a ball, so BR has some responsibility in this also. I wouldn't call obstruction and then time.

DTQ,

Perhaps you can shed some light on this. Did the collision occur just after F3 leaped for the ball, or was F3 just standing there long after the throw passed him? I can't see the latter being the case, since the BR's arrival at the play and the throw would undoubtedly be nearly simultaneous unless the BR fell down getting out of the box.

Law, I agree with what you're saying: if F3 is in the air at the time of the collision, obviously he had no opportunity to get out of the way. In that case, it's hard to justify an obstruction call. I'll give you HTBT on this one.

In general, though, the burden is still on F3 to get out of the way if he cannot glove the throw. If he lands and makes no effort to get out of the way, I've got obstruction. Agreed?

I guess this helps flesh out the idea of "disappearing." Thank you for that.

If he lands and stands around, agreed, but if it's "land/smack!", nope. The batter runner has a better view of the impending collision than the landing fielder.

This is going to be a train wreck far more often than obstruction.

Always tough
 

My last obstruction controversy was a non-call at the plate. R2, single to right field. RFielder has a good arm, but the throw pulls the catcher up the third base line, directly into the path of R2 who is naturally trying to score.

THUMP!

The crash was hard and clean. Both players lying in a tangle; ball lying about three feet away in foul territory. F2 comes to his senses first, grabs the ball and tags out R2.

Third base coach goes nuts- first he wants malicious contact (like I said, hard but clean) then he wants obstruction. I told him any baseball close enough to be picked up for a tag was close enough to give the defense the benefit of the doubt on obstruction. He grumbled and went away.

Strikes and outs!
Z

Sounds to me like you could/should have had NO OBS ... but still killed the ball due to the contact when you feared he was hurt badly. You could then place him on first base - not due to the OBS... but due to the fact that you killed the play and he can't be placed anywhere else and can't be called out.

For all who asked, F3 leaped and came down before the collision, but did not have time to vacate the baseline.

Mike

There's our answer then....No obstruction. In golf, it's called a rub of the green. In baseball, we call it a "train wreck," and neither the conductor nor the engineer are to blame. Casey Jones, you better watch your speed.

Steve,

So you don't see it differently under Fed rules? (Forget OBR for the sake of this question) Why not?

I still think I made a good call if I had to call it under that rule.

Mike

DTQ,

The vast majority of games I've worked have been FED ruled games, and I would not call it differently at any level.

As Garth pointed out, the runner had a better chance of avoiding the collision than did F3, because he was looking straight ahead at the play, while F3 was coming down to the ground after looking at, and attempting to catch, the baseball.

At any level, the fielder has the right to field the ball, even if it is in the middle of the runner's baseline. He also cannot be expected to disappear immediately. If, in your sitch, F3 had the time to get out of the baseline, then I would call Obstruction, and possibly eject F3 for Malicious Contact, as well if warranted.

So you're suggesting that the burden was on the runner to avoid the fielder who was fielding a THROWN ball? That's a new one on me.

Well it certainly isn't on the fielder, if he's doing what he's supposed to be doing, which is catch the baseball, regardless of where it's thrown. As long as he was making a legitimate attempt to catch the ball, it ain't nothin' but a train wreck. I said the runner had a better chance of avoiding the collision. I never said anything about any "burden" being on him to avoid anything.

What is the point of noting the runner has a better chance of avoiding the collision, unless you are suggesting that he had some obligation to do so?

In the play as given, when the collision occurred, the fielder was NOT "doing what he's supposed to be doing, which is catch the baseball..." He had already had his kiss at that pig, and it didn't work out. You have made no effort to explain the conflict between your interpretation of this play and the statement from the OBR I have previously quoted - "After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball."

There is a key word in that statement, that also appears in the original description of the play - "after." My only point is there is rulebook support for a judgment of obstruction. You judge train wreck, fine. The original poster judged obstruction, and based on his description and the official rules and their interpretation, that's fine, too.

No, I'm not. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

In the play in question that fielder was taken to the baseline to field a throw which he just missed doing at the time of the collision.

What I meant to suggest was that this was a train wreck, that the fielder was not at fault, merely doing his job and my comment about the runner was meant to demonstrate that even the runner had a better shot at avoiding the collision than the fielder, not obligation.