Obstruction question

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Assume the following: Type B obstruction has occurred on a runner between 1st and 2nd.

True of False:

1. This runner can NEVER be put out between these two bases.

2. Depending on the particulars regarding the obstruction, this runner might only be protected to FIRST base.

Thanks!

1. False

2. True

David:

Once you commit the routine particulars to memory, you won't have problems as long as you understand baseball.

There is something called "post-obstruction" evidence. The mechanic of yelling and screaming and jumping up and down when Type (b) obstruction occurs is designed to forestall that event.

But you're insisting on going on. So be it.

Statement One is False because it does not allow for "post-obstruction" evidence.

Either the defense or the offense -- or both -- may do something to change the runner's situation.

B1 rips one deep to left. As he reaches first, F3 obstructs him. The umpire calls "That's obstruction!" and says -- mentaly -- "I'll protect him to second." As he watches, the left-fielder goes for the ball and misplays it. Now, the umpire says -- mentally: "He's got third." B1 steams for second -- and slides (!) because of a magnificent deke by the second baseman. The umpire says: "I'll give him second." B1 now realizes that F7 is still chasing the ball, so he gets up and tries for third, where a tremendous throw by the cut-off man (Derek Jeter) puts him out at third.

And that's all right by you. B1 went a base too far. He had third on the error, but the decoy took that base away. Naturally, in FED, the decoy -- likely a simulation of receiving a throw and tagging the runner -- would be penalized, and I would award B1 third.

But everyone will feel better if you will describe the specific Type (b) obstruction that occurred between first and second. I'm having a tough time visualizing that unless it's the batter-runner as he rounds first. But we've already beat that horse not only until it's dead, but nothing other than its bones are left.

Since Statement Two is true, it needs no explanation.

[devilsadvocate]

I don't think I'm too far off from you or Jim on the obstruction rulings.

The response I gave to David was very similar to Jim's post.

The only real difference that I read between what I posted to Bfair and what you and Jim stated was how to handle a runner protected by Type B obstruction that was then caught into a rundown. I will concede that if you did not call time when a Type B obstructed runner was caught in a rundown you could very well end up with a third world play on your hands. If you'll notice in my post, I acknowledged that fact, and put ? to my answers concerning the rundown and a Type B obstructed runner. Now, if I am making an error in my thinking on something other than the "rundown" thing, let me know, because after looking at many of the sources you name, I think that my understanding of obstruction is correct. I don't want to continue to be wrong.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

The instant that runner becomes involved in a rundown, call "Time" and penalize the obstruction. Repeat: After obstruction, the obstructed runner may NEVER get into a rundown. The instant continuing play ends, "something" must be done about the obstruction.

[SNIP]

The instant an obstructed runner is played on, all play stops.

[SNIP]

It might have been Type (a); it might have been Type (b). Now, though, it's Type (over).

The NAPBL 4.22 states [all bold print is original emphasis of NAPBL]:

Under this section of the obstruction rule, the obstruction is to be signaled by the umpire pointing laterally at the obstruction while calling loudly and clearly, "That's obstruction." The ball is not dead, however, and the umpire shall allow play to continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible. At that moment, he shall call "Time" and impose such penalties, if any, that in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction. It is important to note that in cases occurring under this section of the obstruction rule, the umpire shall not call "Time" until all action has ceased and no further play is possible.

Umpires are reminded that if a runner is obstructed under this second section of the obstruction rule, play is to proceed to completion even if it results in a play later being made on the runner who was previously obstructed [my emphasis}. However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

While the NAPBL seems to specifically state that a Type B obstructed runner being later tagged out would be cause to kill play, it does not specify that a runner played on who is safe, or even a runner played on and caught in a rundown would be cause to kill the play. They seem very emphatic with their own bolding so as to assure umpires know on a Type B obstructed runner NOT to kill the ball unless the runner is tagged out.

Carl, this would seem to agree with DA's position regarding the mechanic on a Type B obstructed runner---kill it only if played upon and tagged out---even if in a rundown, wait until he is tagged out to kill the play.

While you in the past have seemed to emphasize the need to accept official interpretation, your position of killing the play at anytime an obstructed runner is played upon seems incongruent with the official interpretation of the NAPBL.

Is there any official interpretation that supersedes what is written in the NAPBL?? What are we missing here?
Are we attempting to override official interpretation?
Is this one worth a question to PBUC??

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 1st, 2001 at 04:05 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Steve:

The PBUC ruling refers to the defense who makes a play on an obstructed runner. For example, the defender chases and tags him, or the runner runs into a tag at a protected base. Naturally, the umpire calls "Time" and enforces the penalty.

But play continues solely so the runner can make extra bases.

The instant he is trapped in a rundown, the obstruction must be penalized. Otherwise, there might be post-obstruction evidence. Note that nothing in the PBUC refers to a runner caught in a rundown.

On the other hand, J/R does cover such a play (as I'm sure you discovered):

R2 is obstructed by the third baseman and rounds third aggressively. "R2 falls and is returning to third when the throw to third beats him by several steps and [look, I can underline, too: grin] causes him to accept a rundown: time is imposed and the runner's return is protected.

That looks pretty good to me, and it certainly doesn't supplant the PBUC ruling; rather, it supplements it.

Wouldn't you agree?



[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 1st, 2001 at 07:49 AM]

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair
Umpires are reminded that if a runner is obstructed under this second section of the obstruction rule, play is to proceed to completion even if it results in a play later being made on the runner who was previously obstructed.

Right. We're only talking about an obstructed runner who has not yet reached his protected base. Certainly if the runner advances beyond it on his own, it will result in a play later being made on the obstructed runner.

However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

Right. If that happens, do what it says to do. Don't call the runner out and then safe. Call, "Time," instead.

There's no contradiction. What is known to have been taught at one former Pro school seems to simply expound on what the PBUC Manual instructs. If you read too much into what the PBUC Manual says, you could easily misread it and see the emphasis in all the wrong places. It's not giving you an exact step by step instruction. It's telling you not to be a doofus and call the obstructed runner out. Instead, call time and give him the base.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Steve:
On the other hand, J/R does cover such a play (as I'm sure you discovered

Actually, I had not checked J/R.
I agree that the PBUC does not specifically address the rundown situation whereas J/R does. Based on that, I can accept the J/R ruling (which supports avoidance of the 3rd world play).

I don't feel PBUC leaves a lot to the imagination, though.
Somewhere down the line I'd think this would be a good PBUC question.
Quite frankly, I hope they agree with J/R.

It can help avoid a $hithou$e if other runners are advancing while the defense is playing on an obstructed runner---who will be awarded a base regardless of the defense's success in the rundown.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[phillycheese]

New member, I've just been lurking- a lot of these weird hypotheticals make my head spin, so I just wait for someone who actually makes sense to post, like Jim Porter. I'd like to thank everyone for their posts and the learning opportunities. Just itchin for the season to start.
Phil