Situation: R1. Base hit into right centerfield. R1 tags 2nd and is heading for 3rd when he is obstucted by F6. R1 falls down. As a result, R1 thinks twice and returns safely to 2nd. BR had already tagged 1st and was heading for 2nd with a double when he was surprised to see R1 return. In his attempt to scamper back to 1st, BR is thrown out.

Pretty easy. You make the call.

But here's an obstruction question I need answered:

Is it theoretically possible that a runner could be obstructed (Type B) and, afterwards, be thrown out at the <i>next</i> base after the obstruction, where the umpire could allow the out to stand?

Example: Batter drives the ball over the rightfielder's head. While rounding 1st, the BR bumps into F3 who is standing in BR's way. Obstruction. The bump is very slight, causing BR to lose a step or two at most. At the time of the obstruction, the ball was being thrown to F4, the relay man. BR overestimates his hit as the ball took a nice hop off the wall resulting in the ball's quick return to the infield. BR should have remained at 1st and settled for a long single. But he is thrown out by a country mile at 2nd. Could the umpire rule that the out stands reasoning that the BR would have been thrown out anyway, notwithstanding the obstruction?

<B><u>Situation 1</B></u>

R1 awarded 3B and BR awarded 2B with the out nullified since all action resulted from obstruction on R1. Of course, this assumes you judge R1 was making a legitimate attempt to advance to 3rd, and not merely bluff it as he rounded 2nd base.

<hr width=50%>
<B><u>Situation 2</B></u>

Your decision in protecting BR to 2nd is based not on whether you felt he would have made it there safely, but rather on whether you judged he was making a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd at the time he was obstructed.

Evans must have read your mind when he put this in JEA:
<ul>Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field. The 1st baseman is not paying attention and obstructs the B-R as he rounds 1st. In the umpire’s judgment, the B-R was going to try for 2nd . The throw to second is perfect and, most likely, the B-R would have been put out.

Ruling: Regardless of the B-R's chances to reach 2nd safely, the defensive team is obligated to allow unimpeded progress on the base path. In this case, the 1st baseman is guilty of type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The B-R is awarded 2nd (at least one base)...the penalty provided under 7.06(a).</ul>

So, to answer your question about allowing this BR to be thrown out at the next base.............
If I judged BR was obstructed after rounding 1B <u>but was not making a legitimate attempt to advance</u>, perhaps making a wide turn bluff to draw a throw, I would not protect him to 2B. Other occurences might happen:
<ol><li> The runner may hear you call "obstruction" and advance thinking he's protected yet if he draws an errant throw he could go beyond 2nd, or
<li> He could attempt return to 1st and be caught in a rundown resulting in his dive attempt into 2nd base for an out. In that case, I'd enforce the type B obstruction and return him to first---the base I would have protected him back to as a result of the obstruction.</ol>
Just my opinion,

Freix

Unless it's FED, in which case the BR would be given 2nd base regardless of where you thought he should go to nullify the obstruction...gotta love that FED...

GBA

Steve,

In your situation #2, the rundown, I always thought that as soon as the runner gets hung up in the pickle, you call time immediately and make the base award without waiting to see the result of the rundown; wpeaking OBR of course.

SamC

In my second example, I don't see how you can invoke any awards under 7.06(a) since there is no direct play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction.

If it's Type A obstruction than the answer is easy: BR is awarded 2nd regardless of the severity of the obstruction and regardless of which base he was trying for.

But this is Type B obstruction which gives the umpire much greater latitude in making awards.

In any case, I think I might understand this after all. Let me "articulate" my understanding and please correct me if I am still confused.

Speaking only of Type B (OBR style) obstruction:

1. If a runner is obstructed and the umpire judges that he was not making any legitimate attempt to get to any particular base, the umpire is free to make NO AWARD and to, essentially, ignore the obstruction.

2. If the runner is obstructed while making a legitimate attempt to get to a base (whether advancing or returning) an award is always in order. The awarded base is always the one toward which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction.

3. Once a runner has reached the base to which he would have been awarded, the umpire may choose to award the runner additional bases by assessing the circumstances of the play as it is allowed to continue.

4. So, to answer the following question: Can a Type B obstructed runner be thrown out between the bases where the original obstruction occurred? Answer: NO! However, the awarded base has nothing to do with which base the runner is ultimately thrown out at. Rather, the awarded base is that base to which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction.

Examples to illustrate this point:

Example #1: BR rounds first and is simply bluffing an advance to 2nd when he is obstructed. While attempting to return to 1st the BR is caught in a rundown. The umpire allows the rundown to proceed and calls the runner out if tagged out, regardless of where or how the out occurs. Essentially, this runner has no protection.

Example #2: BR rounds first and is making a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd when he is obstructed. BR is ultimately thrown out at 2nd. Time out! BR awarded 2nd.

Example #3: BR rounds first and decides to return to 1st. While attempting to return to 1st he is obstructed. The runner ultimately gets caught in a rundown and is tagged out. Ruling: Regardless of circumstances of how this runner is ultimately tagged out, his award is going to 1st base ... the base toward which he was striving at the time of the obstruction. So, if this runner is tagged out on a close play into 2nd - his award is 1st base.

Is this it? I hope so.

David:</p>The instant it is clear the ball and the runner are headed for the same base, that's Type (a) obstruction. As Steve said, your play could have been borrowed from the JEA: Kill the ball and award B1 second.You can ignore obstruction only if the runner reaches the base you expected him to reach without the obstruction. Wrong: Avoid a third-world play. Call time the instant the rundown develops, and send the BR to second. Tell the coach he was returning to first because he judged he could not make it safely to second after the obstruction.The ball is dead the instant the BR cannot return safely to first. This is not Type (b) obstruction but Type (a): Send the runner to second. Reason: He is obstructed going back to first but cannot return to first; therefore, the defense was playing on him at the time of the obstruction.

Here's the process of handling Type (b) obstruction:

1. The runner is obstructed.
2. Point to the infraction with your left hand and scream: "That's obstruction!!"
3. In your mind immediately pick a base and say -- to yourself: I'll protect him to...." and name that base. It could be an advance base; it could be a return base. It's an advance base if you think he's is attempting the next base. It's a return base if you think he's simply rounding the base agressively. It's been my experience that the runner is NEVER (almost) out trying to return after an obstruction where the umpire DOES NOT award second base. That is, the runner is bumped rounding a base, has no interest in the next base, and returns without a play. Nothing anywhere -- except in FED, where the runner gets second.

Now:

a. 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.

b. Benefit of the doubt on Type (b) obstruction always goes to the offense. The defender is not making a play. Therefore, the onus is on the defense to show why the obstruction should NOT be penalized.

I've got a couple of comments that will basically say, <b>"You are mistaken, sir!"</b> Now, I don't actually <b>know</b> if I'm correct, but this is a discussion board.....

<i><font color=red>"2. If the runner is obstructed while making a legitimate attempt to get to a base (whether advancing or returning) <b>an award is always in order</b>. The awarded base is always the one toward which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction."</i></font color=red> Not necessarily. With <b>Type A obstruction</b> the runner is awarded at least one base beyond, even if he was returning to a base, not advancing. However, with <b>Type B obstruction</b> a runner may be making a legitimate attempt to get to a base and still not be awarded a base, <i>even after obstruction</i>. It is a judgement call by the umpire as to what to award the runner. A super slow runner may be obstructed while making a legitimate attempt to advance to a base, and the umpire say "This kid is so slow that the obstrution had no impact on the outcome of the play". So, a legitimate attempt is not an "automatic" award. Being obstucted while a play is being made on the runner is "time" then an automatic award. This would also apply to Example #2.

<i><font color=red>"4. So, to answer the following question: Can a Type B obstructed runner be thrown out between the bases where the original obstruction occurred?" <b>Answer: NO!</b>? However, the awarded base has nothing to do with which base the runner is ultimately thrown out at. Rather, the awarded base is that base to which the runner was striving at the time of the obstruction."</i></font color=red> Answer: <b>YES!</b> Let's say B1 rounds first, and is slightly obstucted. You signal obstruction. This is Type B obstuction because no play is being made on the obstructed runner. As he continues to second, he hears his coach say "Go back!". He heads back to first. The throw then comes in to F4, who then throws the ball to F1, and get B1 in a rundown. Unless B1 is obstructed in the rundown, you're call is based on your judgement of the obstruction on B1 and the actions of B1 after the obstruction. Remember, he was headed for second. He is that super slow player. You may have not protected him to second. But let's say you did. He's ten feet from the base you have protected him to, and he suddenly turns around and heads back to first. There was no play being made on him, just bad coaching. An umpire might to himself "I protected him to second, but his decision to come back to first (similar to a player advancing beyond the base that they have been protected) was at his own jeapordy.

<i><font color=red>"In my second example, I don't see how you can invoke any awards under 7.06(a) since there is no direct play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction."</i></font color=red> I think that what the JEA is saying in this particular example is that the throw to second occured at the time of the obstruction. The player was advancing to the base that the ball was thrown at the time of the obstruction, so that is Type A. I think the wording in the example should be more specific and not as amibiguous.

<i><font color=red>"Example #3: BR rounds first and decides to return to 1st. While attempting to return to 1st he is obstructed. The runner ultimately gets caught in a rundown and is tagged out. Ruling: Regardless of circumstances of how this runner is ultimately tagged out, his award is going to 1st base ... the base toward which he was striving at the time of the obstruction. So, if this runner is tagged out on a close play into 2nd - his award is 1st base."</i></font color=red> If the runner is being played on this would be Type A obstruction, and the runner would be awarded second base, regardless of the direction the runner is headed when the obstruction occurs. That's what I see in your description.

<i><font color=red>"Example #1: BR rounds first and is simply bluffing an advance to 2nd when he is obstructed. While attempting to return to 1st the BR is caught in a rundown. The umpire allows the rundown to proceed and calls the runner out if tagged out, regardless of where or how the out occurs. Essentially, this runner has no protection."</i></font color=red> Not necessarily. If the runner was bluffing and he is obstructed, the fielder is still guilty of an infraction. If B1 is bluffing, and F3 bumps him, you might not protect an advance to second, but you might protect a return to first. F3 obligation not to hinder the runner is not nullified by B1 attempt bluff.






[Edited by devilsadvocate on Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:46 PM]

Carl
You state:"a. 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." Third world play: B1 rounds first, and is slightly bumped by F3. As he continues to second, he trips over his own feet. Now the slight bump cost him two steps, but the trip costs him 10 steps (maybe steps will someday become a standard unit of measure, grin). <b>While the player is on the ground</b>, the ball is picked up in the outfield and thrown into second. No play was being made on the runner when the obstruction occured. The fall would be considered action after the obstruction. If the runner got into a rundown, the umpire may or may not protect the runner. J/R gives an example where the runner is obstructed by the shortstop, is protected to third, rounds third and falls, and states the the umpire may protect the runner back to third. So I guess I'm saying that maybe if the runner put himself in the position of a rundown after Type B obstruction he might not be protected.

My question to you would be "When considering action after the obstruction and a player falling down of his own doing, what guidelines do you use to decide if the runner is protected?" When I first read the J/R play, I thought the runner would be out if the fell <b>after</b> reaching the base he was protected, but obviously there is room for judgement there. Any insight?

When I wrote my initial post, I also had the following play in mind:
<ul>R1 only. Batter singles to right and is obstructed after making an aggressive turn at 1B, judged to be an attempt of bluff. R1 is advancing to 3B. F9 has fielded the ball and may or may not have thrown at the time of obstruction. F9's throw is cutoff by F4, who has gone toward right as a cutoff.
Consider the following:
<ol><li> How do we know F9's throw is a play on the BR and not a possible play on R1? Our judgement was that BR was not advancing to 2B (and, in fact, did not).
<li> Since BR has apparently stopped in his tracks on his bluff attempt, can the play at 2B actually be considered a play on BR?
<li>If any throw is cut, can that initial throw be considered a play on the advancing runner?
(Keep in mind the LL World Series plate play where this question came to pass relative to F2's blocking of the plate and being "in the act of fielding")</ol>
The mechanic for Type B obstruction is to "allow play to continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible" (NAPBL). So, taking the above example and considering the throw to 2B is after the obstruction occurred OR that the ball is cut by F4, shouldn't we allow play to continue?

Certainly a direct throw to 2B could be considered as a play on BR under Type A obstruction <u>if the ball was released</u> at or before the time of obstruction---or is it, since we judged the obstruction occurred during a "bluff" and BR was not advancing to BR. What about if it were released <u>AFTER</u> the time of obstruction? Can it <u>change</u> from Type B to Type A? I would think not, but NAPBL states under Type A obstruction mechanic:

<ul><font color=red>If the umpire judges that a throw was made <b>after the obstruction</b> [my emphasis], the obstructed runner will be awarded only one base from the base he last touched at the time of obstruction.</ul></font color=red>
This statement seems to contradict Type A definition that this would even BE a Type A obstruction if, indeed, a throw was made <u>AFTER</u> the obstruction occurred---<b>unless Type B can change into Type A.</b> Furthermore, let's suppose a Type B obstructed runner is thrown out at a base, is not the umpire rather than calling the runner out supposed to kill the play and make the appropriate award? This would also seem to contradict the concept of Type B mechanics which states to allow all play to continue <u>unless</u> the Type B has changed to Type A---at least as far as mechanics are concerned.

In the play above now, suppose F4 cuts the ball and plays upon BR returning to 1B which results in a rundown.
<ol><li> Should we kill the play there based on CSFP or based on rule? (Not to argue CSFP in this situation).
<li> What if R1 is continuing to advance to home during the throw of F4 to F3? If the defense gets BR in a rundown and we kill the play, aren't we denying the offense (the offended party) the opportunity to score a run?
</ol>While I would agree that CSFP says stay away from the 3rd world play and kill the ball when a Type B obstructed runner gets involved in a rundown, I can see where it could be detrimental to the offense.

Let's suppose in my example that the BR wasn't obstructed, but rather R1 was obstructed by F6 as F4 took a throw at 2B (no play being made on R1). Now, F4 relays to F5 where R1 is either tagged out or caught in a rundown? During those events BR is advancing to 2B. Are we to kill the play if R1 is caught in a rundown or tagged out. With F9's throw going to 2B, it is very apparent R1 was not "being played upon" at the time of the obstruction. Are we not killing the defense's opportunity to retire BR, which had nothing to do with obstruction? Aren't we killing BR's attempt to advance (although we may award 2B to BR)?

I seem confused about a Type B mechanic here as it seems contradictory to allowing the play to continue until "all play has ceased and no further action is possible." Are we to kill the ball when a play is eventually made upon a Type B obstructed runner <u>and</u> he is out or in a rundown---or are we to "allow all play to cease"? If so, is this by rule, or by CSFP? While I don't mind using CSFP in lieu of rule, <u>I like to know</u> when I am doing that.

I think I truly need help in understanding the prescribed mechanic vs. a CSFP mechanic recommended to avoid a 3rd world play.

Freix

Incorrect. When obstruction occurs, there is always a <b>penalty</b>. "No penalty," is never a choice. At the moment the obstruction occurs point and say, "That's obstruction." At that moment, decide where to protect the obstructed runner. You can protect him to his advance base if he is making a legitimate effort to advance, or you can protect him back to his previous base. In any event, that protection <b>somewhere</b> is the penalty for the defense's illegal act.

Your statements are close, but not quite, correct. When obstruction occurs, a <b>penalty</b> is always in order. As I stated a moment ago, that penalty is the protection of the runner to some destination. The umpire must judge at the time of the obstruction whether the runner was making a legitimate attempt to advance. If he is not legitimately advancing, the runner is protected on his retreat. This is most common when a runner is obstructed just after rounding a base, when he obviously had no intention of advancing. When rounding a base, even though he is obstructed while advancing, he is not making a legitimate effort to advance. Such a runner should be protected on his retreat only.

Correct. Jaksa/Roder calls that, "post-obstruction evidence." Wild throws into dead ball territory are the most common types of post-obstruction evidence.

Incorrect. There is a logistical problem with your play. The obstruction rule was designed so that a quandry such as you described cannot occur.

If the throw has a chance to get that particular runner (rounding and bluffing) in a pickle, it will always be Type A obstruction. The throw would have to be on its way in order for the runner to get caught under such circumstances. If it were Type B, the runner would have enough time to either retreat or decide to advance on his own. The retreat would be protected, the advance would not. The difference between Type A and Type B is one of timing. You have described a play with Type A timing, but with a Type B scenario. Rest assured that it just can't happen that way.

You got that one.

Once again you've created a play with Type A timing and Type B circumstances. It cannot happen that way. If the runner is reatreating, and is obstructed, and a throw is able to get that runner caught in a rundown - that's Type A obstruction.

Type B obstruction is only used when the ball is far removed from the obstruction. It is impossible for obstruction to occur so close to a rundown and be able to call it Type B.

There are two issues here which are widely misunderstood.

The first is understanding the difference between Types A and B obstruction. EXAMPLE: A runner is obstructed while retreating to first. The ball reaches first before the runner. That means that the ball and runner were both heading to first. A play is being made on this obstructed runner, so it is Type A. We need not play technical games with the question of exactly when the ball left the fielder's hand. That's not within the spirit and intent of the obstruction rule. Ball and runner are heading for the same base, runner is obstructed, that's Type A, folks.

The other widely misunderstood aspect to the obstruction rule surrounds this quote from the OBR:

<i>If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible.</i>

So, what we're talking about is the interpretation of, "until no further action is possible." It is natural to assume that this means a typical end to continuous action. But it does not.

Since the defense is required to provide a free and clear path for runners to advance, the obstruction rule clearly favors the offense and penalizes the defense. The only party to be hurt by a premature end to action during Type B obstruction would be the offense. They would be denied the chance to acquire further bases. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume we are continuing play only for the offense's benefit. Since that is the case, it is only the offense's "action" we need to consider when looking for the end.

When the defense possesses the ball and attempts a tag, or when they initiate a rundown, at that moment no further action is possible by the offense. They can no longer run the bases while the ball knocks around the outfield. They now must deal with the defense and the ball.

Obstruction is there for the offense. In no way should obstruction ever aid, protect, or help the defense. Type B obstruction was founded on the premise that the defense should not gain any kind of advantage from their illegal act. With the ball bouncing around the outfield, even obstructed runners should be allowed to continue on their way since the possibility of acquiring advance bases is apparent. To disallow such an advance would indeed be an advantage for the defense gained from their illegal act.

But when the defense is actively trying to put out an obstructed runner before his "protected to" base, that's the end of the hoedown. The offense no longer needs play to continue, because acquiring any bases beyond the protected base, in real baseball, just ain't possible. We would allow play to continue if the tag attempt or rundown is not on the protected runner, or is on an obstructed runner whose protection has ended.

Jim:<p>Quit giving all that good stuff away! (grin)

I consider Jim Porter to the one of the foremost experts on obstruction in the United States. Notice that he doesn't spend a lot of time quoting; he doesn't have to. He understands the theory and practice of obstruction. What's more, he doses it out is consecutive tablespoonfuls of medicine that's easy for us lesser mortals to swallow:<ol><li><p>Ball and runner are heading for the same base, runner is obstructed, that's Type A, folks.</li><li><p>It is only the offense's "action" we need to consider when looking for the end [of playing action].</li><li><p>Type B obstruction was founded on the premise that the defense should not gain any kind of advantage from their illegal act.</li><li><p>[W]hen the defense is actively trying to put out an obstructed runner before his "protected to" base, that's the end of the hoedown.</ol></li><p>I'm always arguing that the rules favor the offense. "Obstruction" is another example of that, as Jim also points out. (Hey, I just thought of another. The offense sends up a pinch hitter. The defense changes pitchers, so the offense sends up <i>another</i> pinch hitter. So the defense.... Oops, they are stuck, and the offense gets the advantage.)

Steve: Quit worrying about the difference between a "prescribed mechanic vs. a CSFP mechanic."

<b>The instant an obstructed runner is played on, all play stops.</b>

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

Next:

1. The obstructed runner and all affected runners get one base -- at least. (The obstruction killed the ball: Type a.)

2. The umpire awards bases as he sees fit. (A "play" on the obstructed runner killed the ball: Type b. [Of course, all play might have ceased without the defense ever playing on the obstructed runner.])

Don't feel that you're the only one who needs help understanding this. Jim Evans thinks distinguising the difference between the two types is among the most difficult tasks of the umpire.

Here, of course, the National Federation has it best. Every obstruction is allowed to continue until ALL PLAYING ACTION IS OVER.

I call that Obstruction Type (play on). It's what you may have been confusing with the already confusing OBR obstruction statute.
Thanks, Jim, for riding in once again to save the day. (No, that was Mighty Mouse. Did he "ride"?)

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!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devilsadvocate
D.A.:

You give your obstruction "rulings" with such enthusiasm -- and so colorfully.

Unfortunately, many of them are wrong.

You're better off when you discuss matters of philsophy or mechanics, where opinions count -- and may differ.

Obstruction (current practice) is quite specific and has been explained correctly in three posts already: Jim Porter's and mine.

This is <b>not</b> a matter of opinion, other than authoritative opinion, which Jim and I have paraphrased from many sources, including the JEA, J/R, <i>Baseball By the Rules</i>, <i>Make the Right Call</i>, and <i>Knotty Problems</i>.

Please don't confuse the issue.

A so-called "Devil's Advocate" has no business arguing that in a Base 10 number system, 2 plus 2 isn't four. Rather, you should argue we ought to change to Base Two.

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.

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 <font color=green>?</font color=green> to my answers concerning the rundown and a Type B obstructed runner.<b> 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.</b> I don't want to <b>continue</b> to be wrong.

The NAPBL 4.22 states <b><font color=blue>[all bold print is <u>original emphasis of NAPBL</u>]:</b>
<ul>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 <b>not</b> dead, however, and the umpire shall allow play to continue <b>until all play has ceased and no further action is possible</b>. 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 <u>even if it results in a play later being made on the runner who was previously obstructed</u> [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 <b>tagged out</b>.</ul></font color=blue>
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 <u>emphatic</u> with their own bolding so as to assure umpires know on a Type B obstructed runner <b>NOT to kill the ball unless the runner is <u>tagged out</u></b>.

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---<u>even if in a rundown</u>, 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]

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):<ul>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] <u>causes him to accept a rundown</u>: time is imposed and the runner's return is protected.</ul><p>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]

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.

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.

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

I love this stuff
 

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