Obstruction or not?
 

In a 14 Y/O travel game today, I was BU. A throw to first on an infield grounder pulled F3 off the bag and into the runners path about 5 feet down the line toward home. The ball was thrown too high for F3 to catch and after it sailed over his head to the 8 foot high fence, the batter-runner collided with F3 and BR falls to the ground gasping for air because the wind was knocked out of him.

I called obstruction at the time of the collision, then I immediately call time because I thought that BR may have been seriously hurt (which fortunately was not the case).

My partner who has much more experience than I, and who I respect alot, said that since F3 was going for the ball there should have been no obstruction call.

I told him that I called obstruction so I could award BR first base in case he had gotten tagged while laying on the ground. My reasoning is that if the BR gets leveled in a collision on a play like that, he belongs on first base and the only way I can do that is to call obstruction. That way if a fielder picks up the ball and tags the BR out while lying on the ground, I award him first base.

Should I have called obstruction?

BTW we were playing High School rules, which I admittedly don't know very well.

Your partner was correct.

The first baseman has the right to attempt to field the thrown ball.

From your description of the incident, you do not have obstruction.

It is what is commonly referred to as a "train wreck".

Ditto. Train wreck. It's unfortunate, but if he is laying there and gets tagged he's out. He does not "deserve" first base, because he didn't make it there safely, and as Doug said, F3 has every right to go after an off-line throw.

Yes 1B has a right to go after and errant throw - but this was posted ALSO as a throw WAY over 1B's head. 1B does NOT have the right to throw his body around on a ball he has no chance of catching.
IF the throw is one so high that 1B never had a chance to catch, obstruction. Otherwise I'm on board with both of you.

From the OBR 2.00 definition of OBSTRUCTION:

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. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

Based on the information in your post that I have boldfaced above, and this citation from the OBR definition of obstruction, I would say you were perfectly justified in judging (and obstruction IS a judgment call) obstruction and awarding the obstructed runner 1B. You have not only rulebook support for the judgment, as I've noted, it's also the CS&FP (common sense and fair play) call, given the circumstances you described. The defense shouldn't expect it can butcher a play that badly, knock the runner senseless in the process, and pull an out out of the rabbit's hat.

I don't agree at all. He said, "The ball was thrown too high for F3 to catch and after it sailed over his head to the 8 foot high fence, the batter-runner collided with F3 and BR falls to the ground..." It sounds to me like the BR collided with F3 immediately after the ball passed F3. F3 wasn't "lying on the ground delaying the runner's progress" or anything remotely similar.

The fact that the ball was too high is irrelevant. This isn't football, and it's not the same thing as a Pass Interference "uncatchable ball" scenario. There is no precedent for saying that the fielder could not possibly catch the ball. The ball "sailed over his head to the 8 foot fence..." To me, that shows that the ball wasn't that far out of F3's reach, if it hit a fence behind him which was only 8 feet high. You make it sound like the ball should have gone over the fence and out of play, the way you are saying they "butchered it that badly."

I picture it more like: The throw was off-line and too high, the fielder had the right to try to catch it nonetheless, incidental contact with the runner. Not obstruction. Had F3 purposely remained in the baseline to obstruct the runner, then yes, you would have something. But this did not occur "after a fielder has made an attempt to field the ball and missed." It occurred during a play where he made a legal attempt to field the ball.

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.

I'm enjoying the discussion. Can someone post the definition of "obstruction" from the Fed rulebook, if it is different from OBR?

Also, does any rule actually say that the fielder has the right to step into a runner's path to field a thrown ball?

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

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.

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

2006 FED 2-22-1 ... Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2; or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter as in 5-1 -2b, 8-1 -1 e, 8-3-1 c and 8-3-2. When obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of playing action and the umpire has authority to determine which base or bases shall be awarded the runners according to the rule violated (Exceptions 3-3-1 o, 8-4-2c Note, 8-4-2d).

2006 OBR 2.00 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 any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.<O:p</O:p

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.

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.

No need to immediately disappear
 

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.

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.

I didn't point it out originally. I said, "as Garth has pointed out." Neither of us said anything about any obligation. We only presented the fact that is already in evidence, which is that the runner had a better chance of avoiding the collision. The fact that the runner was unable to avoid the fielder speaks volumes about the bang-bang nature of what happened. You need to read what I quote below.

The original poster also just said to us:

(emphasis added)

Based on this, if you call obstruction, you would be incorrect. Your statement from OBR means that the fielder, after having attempted and failed catching the ball, must not now do anything to obstruct the runner. It does not mean that he has to suddenly disappear. If he then subsequently goes out of his way to impede the runner, then you have obstruction.

You keep debating this with me, as if I'm the only one saying this. Most posters have agreed that if F3 didn't have time after his leap to get out of the way, that it is not obstruction.

There's one other piece though, besides how quickly the F3 landed - did he have a shot at the ball in the first place? If it's three feet over his glove when he jumps he was not making a play on the ball. IF he never had a shot at (meaning he was never really making a play at it) it he can't jump, land, or do anything else in the baseline.

Don't take the short end of the stick...unless its way, way over his head...then I'm ruling he was "making a play on the ball"...that is making an attempt to catch it.

Lord Byron: I pretty much agree with what your saying...there is a burden on the fielder to get out of the way...the only difference, as I read J/R, is the amount of time he has in order to get out of the way...on a batted ball he must get out of the way immediately after missing the ball ("disappear")...on a thrown ball he must get out of the way quickly, but not "immediately" (as J/R says, he need not immediately "disappear".)

You are the only one who appears to have the necessary omniscience to tell someone they are "wrong" on how they would rule on a judgement decision, when none of us were there to see everything that happened, exactly how and exactly when. I haven't once said a judgement of no obstruction is wrong; I have simply said that given the information provided by the original poster and the statement contained in the OBR definition of obstruction, a judgment of obstruction can be supported.

Dave, read the post directly above yours from lawump. It pretty much says the same thing. DTQ stated that F3 had no time to move away to avoid a collision. That tells us everything we need to know, and to call obstruction in this case would be, say it with me now, WRONG. There is right and wrong on issues, and in this particular case, obstruction is the wrong call. My omniscience notwithstanding.:D

What the heck... let me make things more confusing
 

FED case book 8.3.2 Situations C and I add a very interesting word to the case... they say that a fielder is allowed to be in the path if the play is "Imminent". Once the ball is past, there is no more imminence. Imminence refers to things in the future.

I still think whether he was making a play, whether he had a chance to avoid contact, etc... makes all of these kinds of things a HTBT, but I figured I'd stir the pot a bit.

Lee:eek: