Obstruction question

[David Emerling]

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 next 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?

[Bfair]

Situation 1

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.

---

Situation 2

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:

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).

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 but was not making a legitimate attempt to advance, perhaps making a wide turn bluff to draw a throw, I would not protect him to 2B. Other occurences might happen:

1. 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
   
2. 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.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[JJ]

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

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by Bfair
Other occurences might happen:

1. 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
   
2. 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.

Just my opinion,

Freix

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

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Bfair

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).
[/B]

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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David Emerling

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.
[/b]

David:

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.

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.

You can ignore obstruction only if the runner reaches the base you expected him to reach without 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.

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.

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.

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.

[devilsadvocate]

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

"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." Not necessarily. With Type A obstruction the runner is awarded at least one base beyond, even if he was returning to a base, not advancing. However, with Type B obstruction a runner may be making a legitimate attempt to get to a base and still not be awarded a base, even after obstruction. 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.

"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." Answer: YES! 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.

"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 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.

"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." 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.

"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." 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]

[devilsadvocate]

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). While the player is on the ground, 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 after reaching the base he was protected, but obviously there is room for judgement there. Any insight?

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.
[/B]

When I wrote my initial post, I also had the following play in mind:

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:

1. 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).
   
2. Since BR has apparently stopped in his tracks on his bluff attempt, can the play at 2B actually be considered a play on BR?
   
3. 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")

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 if the ball was released 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 AFTER the time of obstruction? Can it change from Type B to Type A? I would think not, but NAPBL states under Type A obstruction mechanic:


If the umpire judges that a throw was made after the obstruction [my emphasis], the obstructed runner will be awarded only one base from the base he last touched at the time of obstruction.

This statement seems to contradict Type A definition that this would even BE a Type A obstruction if, indeed, a throw was made AFTER the obstruction occurred---unless Type B can change into Type A. 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 unless 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.

1. Should we kill the play there based on CSFP or based on rule? (Not to argue CSFP in this situation).
   
2. 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?
   
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 and 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, I like to know 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

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by David Emerling
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.

Incorrect. When obstruction occurs, there is always a penalty. "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 somewhere is the penalty for the defense's illegal act.

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.

Your statements are close, but not quite, correct. When obstruction occurs, a penalty 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You got that one.

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.

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.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair

When I wrote my initial post, I also had the following play in mind:

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:

1. 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).
   
2. Since BR has apparently stopped in his tracks on his bluff attempt, can the play at 2B actually be considered a play on BR?
   
3. 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")

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 if the ball was released 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 AFTER the time of obstruction? Can it change from Type B to Type A? I would think not, but NAPBL states under Type A obstruction mechanic:


If the umpire judges that a throw was made after the obstruction [my emphasis], the obstructed runner will be awarded only one base from the base he last touched at the time of obstruction.

This statement seems to contradict Type A definition that this would even BE a Type A obstruction if, indeed, a throw was made AFTER the obstruction occurred---unless Type B can change into Type A. 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 unless 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.

1. Should we kill the play there based on CSFP or based on rule? (Not to argue CSFP in this situation).
   
2. 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?
   
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 and 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, I like to know 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 [/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:

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

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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
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:

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

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:

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:

1. Ball and runner are heading for the same base, runner is obstructed, that's Type A, folks.

2. It is only the offense's "action" we need to consider when looking for the end [of playing action].

3. Type B obstruction was founded on the premise that the defense should not gain any kind of advantage from their illegal act.

4. [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.

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 another 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."

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

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"?)

[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!

[devilsadvocate]

Originally posted by Bfair
When I wrote my initial post, I also had the following play in mind:

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:

1. How do we know F9's throw is a play on the BR and not a possible play on R1? (We don't) Our judgement was that BR was not advancing to 2B (and, in fact, did not).
   
2. Since BR has apparently stopped in his tracks on his bluff attempt, can the play at 2B actually be considered a play on BR? (Not in my opinion)
   
3. If any throw is cut, can that initial throw be considered a play on the advancing runner? (No)
   (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")

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? (Yes, let the play continue till all action has ceased, or until the runner is actually tagged out at or before the base he is protected)

Certainly a direct throw to 2B could be considered as a play on BR under Type A obstruction if the ball was released 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 AFTER the time of obstruction? (Then it is Type B obstruction. Unless a play is being made on a runner concurrently with obstruction can it be Type A obstruction) Can it change from Type B to Type A? (No) I would think not, but NAPBL states under Type A obstruction mechanic:


If the umpire judges that a throw was made after the obstruction [my emphasis], the obstructed runner will be awarded only one base from the base he last touched at the time of obstruction.

This statement seems to contradict Type A definition that this would even BE a Type A obstruction if, indeed, a throw was made AFTER the obstruction occurred---unless Type B can change into Type A. (This is confusing, but I think what it is saying is that if the runner is obstructed and the throw (the play) is made on him after the obstruction (immediately after the obstruction) you call the play dead and award the advance base, ignoring the overthrow?) 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 unless the Type B has changed to Type A---at least as far as mechanics are concerned. (I'm not seeing why the obstruction Type needs to change. You let all play continue until all action ceases or the protected runner is tagged out before his protected base. Now, I realize that this is not technically allowing the play to continue as far as possible, but it does prevent the ensuing confusion of having a runner that has actually been awarded second, in the ump's mind, called out, then play continue, then bring him back when all action ceases, and then placing the runners)

In the play above now, suppose F4 cuts the ball and plays upon BR returning to 1B which results in a rundown.

1. Should we kill the play there based on CSFP or based on rule? (Not to argue CSFP in this situation).
   
2. 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?
   
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. (Fear not the third world play. What we need to do is come up with the correct ruling for such a play. If BR gets caught in a rundown, either he will make it to a base, or he won't. If he does, no problem. If he doesn't, then we send him to the base that we mentally awarded him at the moment of the obstruction. I would have protected the runner to first. If he makes it to first, no problem. If he gets to second, hey, good for him, he got further than I thought he would. If he gets tagged at a base or between bases, we call time and award the BR.....first? Like I said, we need to come up with the answer so this isn't a third world play.)

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? (Tagged, call time. Otherwise, let it go?) 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? (No pity for the defense, they are guilty of obstruction and no quarter given to the crimminal) Aren't we killing BR's attempt to advance (although we may award 2B to BR)? (Yes, but we award R1 third, and maybe BR second, but I doubt it)

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 and he is out (Yes) or in a rundown (No)---or are we to "allow all play to cease"? If so, is this by rule, or by CSFP? (By rule) While I don't mind using CSFP in lieu of rule, I like to know 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 [/B]

[Carl Childress]

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

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.