"until no further action is possible"

[David Emerling]

If nothing else was learned from the recent "Obstruction" thread it was this: That well-meaning and educated umpires can seldom agree on this topic. Everybody makes perfect sense in their views ... it's just that no consensus seems ever to be reached on the sticky points.

In any case, I want to focus on one particular aspect of Type B obstruction which appears in OBR 7.06(b).

7.06(b) "... if no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible."

It has been suggested that as soon as a runner is caught in a rundown that play should immediately be halted. Why? Is this in accordance with 7.06(b)? It seems not. Should the offense get the benefit of a possible overthrow in the rundown or some other malady that might befall the defense as a result of the continuation of play? I would think so.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by David Emerling

7.06(b) "... if no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible."

Actually, Dave, the mechanic contradicts itself when it specifically then states to kill the ball if the obstructed runner is tagged out on a throw.
Couldn't other runners be in the act of progressing at that point? I don't know why they couldn't. Yet, the mechanic has now said to stop play even if further action is possible.

I certainly prefer to use CSFP when possible, and the J/R interpretations which address rundowns support killing the play when the rundown initiates. Knowing that the only thing that's likely to grow larger at that point is your can of worms, I'll accept J/R until PBUC rules. That allows use of CSFP on this play.
If I'm wrong, it certainly won't be the first time.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[devilsadvocate]

Originally posted by Bfair

Actually, Dave, the mechanic contradicts itself when it specifically then states to kill the ball if the obstructed runner is tagged out on a throw.
Couldn't other runners be in the act of progressing at that point? I don't know why they couldn't. Yet, the mechanic has now said to stop play even if further action is possible.


Freix

Steve, maybe we should assume that the definition of "no further action" would include "the act of tagging out the protected runner". Then there is no contradiction, because we have included the act of tagging out the protected runner as an indicator of "no further action". Yes, other runners could be progressing at the point that you kill the play. So, since you had to kill the play "prematurely", remember to give the runners the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding how far they may have advanced.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Should the offense get the benefit of a possible overthrow in the rundown or some other malady that might befall the defense as a result of the continuation of play? I would think so.

You would, but that's just not the spirit and intent behind 7.06(b). It's not there to allow the offense to take advantage of defensive errors. It's there to prevent the offense from being penalized. It's there to ensure that a batter who smacks a ball into the corner cannot be obstructed rounding first and lose his chance to go for a triple, or even more. It keeps us from having to stop that batter-runner and only award him second base.

Remember, we're talking about Pro rules, here. The kind of gross overthrow you are talking about during a rundown would be rarer than Count Dracula's sirloin steak in the bigs. These rules were not designed for Little, or even Interscholastic League Baseball.

And, finally, when an overthrow occurs on a throw made before play is called dead, it should not penalize the offense. That's post-obstruction evidence. You can give the obstructed runner another base if you think he had a reasonable chance of reaching there safely.

Now, if you want to see a real argument, let's suppose you do let play continue during the rundown occurring before the obstructed runner reaches his protected base. Remember that it is a rundown that would not have happened if the runner had not been obstructed.

The ball is thrown wild into the outfield, and the obstructed runner is thrown out trying to advance to the next base. You have no choice but to call him out. The whole she-bang wouldn't have occurred had the obstruction not taken place - an illegal act by the defense. You have just let the defense's illegal act, as well as their error, actually reward the defense. They were able to secure a rundown by obstructing the runner, and then throw him out as he advanced during their error. If the defense hadn't committed their illegal act, or their error, the runner would be standing on second base safely with the next batter ready to go. Good luck in getting off that field alive.

When you look at examples such as the one above, it is easy to understand why it is far wiser to kill play once the rundown begins. Now, we're only talking about a runner who gets caught in a pickle before he has reached his protected base. The way the obstruction rule is designed, that should almost NEVER happen. That would be Type A obstruction 99.999999% of the time.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by devilsadvocate
Steve, maybe we should assume that the definition of "no further action" would include "the act of tagging out the protected runner". Then there is no contradiction, because we have included the act of tagging out the protected runner as an indicator of "no further action". Yes, other runners could be progressing at the point that you kill the play. So, since you had to kill the play "prematurely", remember to give the runners the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding how far they may have advanced.

The "benefit of the doubt" is correct here. The following is a passage from my book Handbook: The Bases A to W, published by Gerry Davis and available -- for pre-order -- now; publication, sometime in December:

The base umpire should make all awards except those where the UIC declares a dead-ball infraction. For example, if the plate umpire rules the batter interfered before touching first, it’s his responsibility to determine the placement of the runners.
Occasionally, the UIC should be ready to assist you. That’s particularly true of an obstruction award.
Play: R1 gets obstructed as he nears third. Because the ball is on the way to that base, the umpire calls: “Time! That’s obstruction.” B1 is hanging out at second. Now the crew must decide: Does he return to first or stay on second?
The current practice in professional baseball allows B1 to remain on second if he was more than halfway to the base at the moment of obstruction. In the Play that’s not likely. But if the UIC is alert, he will glance at B1 the second he hears “That’s obstruction!” Knowing where the batter-runner was certainly beats guessing.

If the umpires work as a team, benefit of the doubt will be a snap to assess.

The book is actually a two-volume look at mechanics for the two-man crew. Its companion volume (simply named Calling the Plate) is printed in the same book, starting from the back. Or front, depending on which you think is the more important.

[devilsadvocate]

Carl,
"Handbook: The Bases A to W", published by Gerry Davis, is available where for preorder?

[devilsadvocate]

Originally posted by Jim Porter


Remember, we're talking about Pro rules, here. The kind of gross overthrow you are talking about during a rundown would be rarer than Count Dracula's sirloin steak in the bigs. These rules were not designed for Little, or even Interscholastic League Baseball.

They may not be designed for Little League, but these are the rules we use. Now, in LL, the gross overthrow is more likely to occur (kids, pumped up on sugar and excitement, tend to get wild with their throws sometimes). However, and let me know if you agree, the smart thing to do is kill the play when the protected runner gets caught in a rundown.

Now, technically speaking, is killing the play on a runner in a rundown that is protected under Type B obstruction the smart umpire thing to do, or is it the letter of the law? I mean, we could allow the play to continue, then award the runner his protected base, even if he was tagged out in the rundown, couldn't we? This is why I'm asking about this ruling, does it fall under "the letter of the law", or does it fall under "preventing a sh**house from occuring"?

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by devilsadvocate

They may not be designed for Little League, but these are the rules we use. Now, in LL, the gross overthrow is more likely to occur (kids, pumped up on sugar and excitement, tend to get wild with their throws sometimes). However, and let me know if you agree, the smart thing to do is kill the play when the protected runner gets caught in a rundown.

Now, technically speaking, is killing the play on a runner in a rundown that is protected under Type B obstruction the smart umpire thing to do, or is it the letter of the law? I mean, we could allow the play to continue, then award the runner his protected base, even if he was tagged out in the rundown, couldn't we? This is why I'm asking about this ruling, does it fall under "the letter of the law", or does it fall under "preventing a sh**house from occuring"?

The letter of this law is not available to the general public except that it can be found in J/R. The OBR is insufficient to rule on this play. The PBUC Manual doesn't address it either. Only J/R gives us insight into what the Pros do in this situation. J/R says to kill play once the rundown begins. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the letter of the law.

Little League Baseball uses the Official Baseball Rules as a basis for their own rules. No contrary information from the J/R ruling has been presented for Little League. It's not in the Right Call, and it has not been discussed at any clinic of which I am aware. There is a ruling in The Right Call that hints at the correctness of the J/R ruling:

Play 7-5: Runner on first takes off with the crack of the bat. Seeing no trouble making third, he rounds second when he collides with the shortstop who is wandering around aimlessly. Runner continues to third and the ball beats him there.

Ruling: When the runner runs into the wandering shortstop, yell "obstruction," but allow the play to continue. On the play at third, raise both hands above your head and call "time." Explain obstruction on the shortstop. Runner is awarded third base.

Note that it does not instruct the umpire to wait until a tag is applied, as many believe the PBUC Manual indicates. Note also that there is indeed the potential for your rundown play. The ball simply beat the runner to third. The runner could have retreated causing a rundown. But the instruction tells us to call time once the ball has beaten the obstructed and protected runner to third. Sounds like the J/R ruling to me.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Dec 2nd, 2001 at 01:56 PM]

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by David Emerling

If nothing else was learned from the recent "Obstruction" thread it was this: That well-meaning and educated umpires can seldom agree on this topic. Everybody makes perfect sense in their views ... it's just that no consensus seems ever to be reached on the sticky points.

David, Obstruction is one if not the most difficult call in baseball whether FED or OBR. FED is simpler with regard to awards because in FED we KNOW the runner is always going to get at least one base whether heading to or retreating from.

I don't like the OBR treatment regarding awards because even though a runner retreats doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have gotten the next base. Remember as a runner one cannot assume at that moment an umpire will rule something - so as an offensive player better be safe than sorry

Perhaps he retreated because F3 or F4 obstructed him and he didn't think he could make it so he retreated - that's why I personally like the FED rule better but that's a matter of preference.

My suggestion regarding this entire issue is: follow the practice that is accepted in the association in which you work. The most important aspect of obstruction is that a group of umpires within the same association rules it the same way.

This is what I have been taught regarding Obstruction.

When we see obstruction signal with the left hand THATS OBSTRUCTION Loud enough for everyone to hear. As Jim P said in your mind determine which base you are going to protect the runner to. The moment there is a play at that protected to base - whether in a run down or tag attempt signal TIME! and make the awards. Use your judgement as to where to place other runners if they are involved.

The rule of thumb is: if a runner was at least halfway to the next base - award him / her that base.

Also, as others mentioned, our protected to base can change depending upon the defense, ie; an oufielder bobbles the ball.

In a nutshell, bring this question up to your association and follow their practice regarding the mechanics and ultimate ruling concerning obstruction.

As a side note: In most instances whenever someone hears" THAT'S OBSTRUCTION! action almost always stops at least in amateur ball. It's almost as if they hear FOUL ball.

Pete Booth