We were instructed last season to award a base even on a play such as this.
The reasoning given was that it would serve as a deterant to an F3 intentionally obstructing, in hopes he'd get away with it.

umpduck11,

Not only does it serve as a deterrent, it's the rule. Which, if I'm reading him correctly, was precisely LMan's point.

JM

Negative. If he was rounding 1st and going to 2nd and reached 2nd the obstruction is ignored. If he was "really" obstructed going back to 1b on a pickoff he would be awarded 2b.

I had one last week on a pickoff at 2b. Runner was too far off and F1 whirled and threw to F4, who fielded the ball where it was thrown, on the 3b side of the bag. R2, who was too far off had to try to reach around F4 whose right foot was in his way. The tag was applied and I called the out. Coach called time to discuss. He can't block the bag without the ball he says. I say sure he can if he is making a play, the play is imminent and he is where he needs to be to make the play.

I can picture this differently. Let's say F6 was on the 3b side of the bag before F1 whirled to throw the ball, R2 moves back toward the bag and bumps into F6 preventing him from reaching the bag, F1 then throws to F6 and he makes the tag. Easy obstruction call, R2 to 3B.

The key to your play at 1B is was he really obstructed, or was F3 making a play and needed to be where he was to make the play.

Perhaps your interpreter is wrong for the 47 FED states where he has no jurisdiction.

Since his source is your and my mutual friend, TS, I have to believe there is a misunderstandin here someplace. Maybe Scott should light the Bat Signal.

Probably me
 

TS and I discussed the matter twice in the last two days at length. If there is any confusion, it must definitely be on my end.

Yes it was, Jim. I'm sorry my intended sarcasm did not come across correctly in my post. ;)

Rich...once again you crack me up. :D :D

I've received two emails from Leo's source this morning. In the second he made very clear that JM's interpretation is the correct interpretation.

I've been going through all of the posts to try to come up with something to simplify the process. Here goes - (assuming FED rules)

1. Was the contact obstruction? YES/NO
2. If NO, ignore the entire situation
3. If YES, did the runner reach the base he was attempting to achieve? YES/NO. If YES, was he attempting to ADVANCE or RETURN. If ADVANCE, ignore obstruction and result of play stands. If RETURN, award once base past base safely returned to.
If NO, and ADVANCING, award base runner would have achieved. If RETURNING, award one base past base runner was attempting to return to.

I don't know if I can make it any simpler than this. The key question is - "IS THE CONTACT OBSTRUCTION". When you call NO OBSTRUCTION and coach starts after you, don't offer anything other than "THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION". No matter what happens, obstruction is a judgment call.

Why make it harder than it is?

Coach JM has it simple and correct:

"Under FED, if the Obstructed runner reaches the base he would have absent the obstruction AND that base is (at least) one base beyond his position at the time of Obstruction, then the Obstruction is ignored and no award is made.

If both conditions are not met, the Obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base."

Well put Garth...let's move on to something completly different.

I'm certainly not trying to make it harder - the fact is, and maybe sad at that too, is that not everybody reads and understands the rule the same way. If they did, then everyone on this site would read and understand the rules the same way, and we know that isn't true. Some people think one step at a time and process that way while others can read the rule the first time and understand what it means. It's not to say one is better than the other, just different. That's why we have rules interp meeting every year, and even with them we still don't all think on the same page.

I figured that someone would see it the way you see it and respond, and you did, and I appreciate it. I just tried to provide an alternative way of thinking about the situation, because as I said, not everybody sees it the same way.

Well and good, however, your number three is incorrect. A runner could still receive an additional base if obstucted when advancing and achieving the base he was attempting.

JM's explanation, besides being simpler, is more complete.

You are correct - wrong wording on my part - it should have read.

If YES, did the runner reach the base he WOULD have achieved? YES/NO.
If YES, was he attempting to ADVANCE or RETURN. If ADVANCE, ignore obstruction and result of play stands. If RETURN, award once base past base safely returned to. If NO to first question either way award base runner WOULD have achieved if no obstruction.