Obstruction or not?

[mbyron]

I have to agree with Dave: when the defense misplays, the fielder has to "disappear" or risk an obstruction call. F3's protection ended when he failed to glove the throw. I seem to recall this view in J/R (my copy has mysteriously vanished).

Don't confuse this play with the standard "train wreck" scenario. In the garden-variety train wreck, F3 CATCHES the high throw and comes down into a collision with the runner. We say "that's nothing," even though both sides want something called, because both players are doing what they are supposed to do: the fielder is fielding, and the runner is running to the base.

In the OP, the fielder was trying to field the ball, failing, and subsequently obstructing the runner. I'm not sure that I agree with the original rationale for the obstruction ("he belongs on 1B") -- depending on what happened on the overthrow, he might "belong" on 2B -- but I agree with the call.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have to agree with Dave: when the defense misplays, the fielder has to "disappear" or risk an obstruction call. F3's protection ended when he failed to glove the throw. I seem to recall this view in J/R (my copy has mysteriously vanished).

Don't confuse this play with the standard "train wreck" scenario. In the garden-variety train wreck, F3 CATCHES the high throw and comes down into a collision with the runner. We say "that's nothing," even though both sides want something called, because both players are doing what they are supposed to do: the fielder is fielding, and the runner is running to the base.

In the OP, the fielder was trying to field the ball, failing, and subsequently obstructing the runner. I'm not sure that I agree with the original rationale for the obstruction ("he belongs on 1B") -- depending on what happened on the overthrow, he might "belong" on 2B -- but I agree with the call.

It seems you have been inbibbing in the left-wing propaganda trough again!

[SanDiegoSteve]

There is a NCAA interpretation from Dave Yeast which, while not an official OBR interpretation, is a good rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned:

"While a fielder may not block the base without the ball, a fielder may move into the path of a runner if he must do so to make a play, i.e., glove a throw."

And the NCAA play example which illustrates this interp is as follows:

Play: R2 tries to score on B1's short single. The right fielder's throw is errant, and the catcher moves up the line to grab it. He collides with R2 but tags him out. Ruling: The play stands. "Both players were doing what they should be doing." - Yeast.

In my opinion, F3 was doing what he should be. The BR, although entitled to do what he should be doing, should see that the throw is off-line (as F3 moving towards him off the bag should be a clue), and attempt to avoid colliding with F3, if he wants to avoid getting the wind knocked out of him.

[bossman72]

my vote is for "nothing". this is a classic trainwreck. as steve said, both players are doing what they should be doing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

In my opinion, F3 was doing what he should be. The BR, although entitled to do what he should be doing, should see that the throw is off-line (as F3 moving towards him off the bag should be a clue), and attempt to avoid colliding with F3, if he wants to avoid getting the wind knocked out of him.

You have ignored black-letter rule in forming this opinion. Although obstruction is a matter of umpire judgment in general, the rulebook definition of obstruction specifically states that a fielder who has misplayed a ball can no longer be in the act of fielding. Thus, at the time of the collision (in the OP) F3 is NOT doing what he should be, he's obstructing.

I recognize that it might seem harsh to demand that a fielder "disappear" upon a defensive miscue, or risk an obstruction call. However, anything less risks punishing the offense for the defense's mistakes.

[tibear]

Sorry mbyron but I disagree.

The way I understand the situation, F3 attempts to catch the ball and then is then is immediately run into by BR. If F3 was simply standing on the basepath after the ball has gone by without any attempt to run and get the overthrown ball, by all means call obstruction.

However, in this case F3 can't immediately disappear from the baseline as soon as the baseball goes past him. You have to give the defense the chance to land and then vacate the baseline to get the ball.

If they are slow in leaving the BR path call obstruction but immediately after an attempted play this is a train wreck.

As for your last line about punishing the offense for the defense's mistakes, this is perfectly legal if for example the defense is trying to throw a runner out and it hits the runner in the head and knocks him out. The defense is perfectly entitled to simply walk over pick up the ball and tag the runner out. Obviously, in this example the umpire would have to determine that the defender wasn't throwing AT the runner but simply hit him by mistake.

[lawump]

Under OBR intepretations, a fielder does NOT need to immediately "disappear" after attempting to field a thrown ball (as opposed to a batted ball).

From J/R:

"A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a 'try to field' a batted ball, excepting that a 'try to field' a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not 'disappear' after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction. (emphasis added).

Thus, in order to answer the OP's question I think one would have had to have been there and seen the play described. If the collision occured immediately as F3 returned to the ground after jumping for the ball, then I would not have called obstruction but rather would have adjudged it to be a "train wreck". However, if the throw to F3 was so high, that F3 didn't even make an attempt to catch it (by jumping, etc.) but rather just stood there and watched it sail by, then I'd have obstruction, as F3 was never in the act of fielding the thrown ball.

My post is limited to OBR and does not include any refrence to Fed rules.

[DTQ_Blue]

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

[mbyron]

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.