Obstruction/confusion

OBR, no; Fed, depends

If the batter-runner rounding first base is obstructed and the umpire adjudges that he was not attempting to acquire second base (simply rounding does not indicate attempt to advance to second) and makes it safely back to first base, then the obstruction is ignored. Refer to the 2006 NFHS rule change in 8-3-2.

However, if the batter-runner is rounding first base, is obstructed and does NOT make it back to first base safely, then obstruction is enforced and a minimum one advance base is awarded. NFHS 8-3-2.

Leo

[UmpJM]

Leo,

If the batter-runner rounding first base is obstructed and the umpire adjudges that he was not attempting to acquire second base (simply rounding does not indicate attempt to advance to second) and makes it safely back to first base, then the obstruction is ignored. Refer to the 2006 NFHS rule change in 8-3-2.

This statement is incorrect, because it contradicts the text of the rule:

...The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. ...

The Obstruction is only ignored when the runner reaches the base he would have been awarded - in this case 2B. It makes no difference whether he continues to attempt to advance or decides to return after the obstruction.

JM

I've gone over this in quite some depth with the WIAA rules interpreter and finally understand it. He agrees, the wording is not the best.

Once again, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. If the obstruction is ignored, then there is not a one base minimum to award. It all centers around your judgment as to what base he was attempting to achieve and then whether or not he achieved that base safely. In the OP, he was not trying to achieve 2B, so by default he was trying to achieve 1B and did so safely. Therefore, the obstruction is "ignored" and not minimum one base award.

Have a great day!
Leo

[Uncle Ernie]

Originally Posted by Prince

I've gone over this in quite some depth with the WIAA rules interpreter and finally understand it. He agrees, the wording is not the best.

Once again, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. If the obstruction is ignored, then there is not a one base minimum to award. It all centers around your judgment as to what base he was attempting to achieve and then whether or not he achieved that base safely. In the OP, he was not trying to achieve 2B, so by default he was trying to achieve 1B and did so safely. Therefore, the obstruction is "ignored" and not minimum one base award.

Have a great day!
Leo

Not really, the rub is that under FED rule we have to award one base. It is written clear in the rule and there is case book support for it. It clearly states that you must award one base minimum.

You can ignore it, sure. But if you call obstruction, the call does not go away under this editorial change. Once you call obstruction and stick your arm out, that runner will be moved up at least one base.

[greymule]

When I did Fed a few years ago, we (theoretically) awarded a base even if the OBS was on a returning runner not being played upon.

Abel gets a hit to right and takes a big turn around 1B. Seeing F9 field the ball quickly, Abel turns around, bumps into F3, and returns to the bag as F9 flips the ball in to F4 at 2B.

Even on this OBS, umpires were supposed to award Abel 2B. However, many umpires either ignored or "didn't see" such infractions. Apparently Fed has made their rule more realistic.

Oops. Or, according to the last post, apparently NOT!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by greymule

When I did Fed a few years ago, we (theoretically) awarded a base even if the OBS was on a returning runner not being played upon.

Abel gets a hit to right and takes a big turn around 1B. Seeing F9 field the ball quickly, Abel turns around, bumps into F3, and returns to the bag as F9 flips the ball in to F4 at 2B.

Even on this OBS, umpires were supposed to award Abel 2B. However, many umpires either ignored or "didn't see" such infractions. Apparently Fed has made their rule more realistic.

Oops. Or, according to the last post, apparently NOT!

1) Just because there was a "bump" doesn't mean there was obstruction (edited to use the correct word).

2) The rule "clarification" came about because some umpires / coaches would award an ADDITIONAL base even when the runner reached the base he was trying for after obstruction. The written words are incorect if taken literally when obstruction occurs when a runner is "going backwards".

[Uncle Ernie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) Just because there was a "bump" doesn't mean there was interference.

Hey now Bob, don't start messing with us. We are talking obstruction here, not interference.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2) The rule "clarification" came about because some umpires / coaches would award an ADDITIONAL base even when the runner reached the base he was trying for after obstruction. The written words are incorect if taken literally when obstruction occurs when a runner is "going backwards".

Agreed about the written words part and the clarification. Obstruction would be called between first and second and the runner would achieve second base. Then, the umpire would then call time and award him third, instead of just keeping him at second.

We have talked about this on this board a couple of times and I thought it has even on the NFHS test a while back (03-05)?

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Prince

I've gone over this in quite some depth with the WIAA rules interpreter and finally understand it. He agrees, the wording is not the best.

Once again, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. If the obstruction is ignored, then there is not a one base minimum to award. It all centers around your judgment as to what base he was attempting to achieve and then whether or not he achieved that base safely. In the OP, he was not trying to achieve 2B, so by default he was trying to achieve 1B and did so safely. Therefore, the obstruction is "ignored" and not minimum one base award.

Have a great day!
Leo

I suppose if R1 were obstructed on a pickoff play back to 1B, you'd leave him at 1B, since that's the 'base he was attempting to acquire.'

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by LMan

I suppose if R1 were obstructed on a pickoff play back to 1B, you'd leave him at 1B, since that's the 'base he was attempting to acquire.'

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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

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

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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

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

[DG]

Originally Posted by LMan

I suppose if R1 were obstructed on a pickoff play back to 1B, you'd leave him at 1B, since that's the 'base he was attempting to acquire.'

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Prince

I've gone over this in quite some depth with the WIAA rules interpreter and finally understand it. He agrees, the wording is not the best.

Once again, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. If the obstruction is ignored, then there is not a one base minimum to award. It all centers around your judgment as to what base he was attempting to achieve and then whether or not he achieved that base safely. In the OP, he was not trying to achieve 2B, so by default he was trying to achieve 1B and did so safely. Therefore, the obstruction is "ignored" and not minimum one base award.

Have a great day!
Leo

Who might this interpreter be? Tim Stevens announced last summer that he no longer holds that post. Who is giving you this information?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Prince

I've gone over this in quite some depth with the WIAA rules interpreter and finally understand it. He agrees, the wording is not the best.

Once again, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. If the obstruction is ignored, then there is not a one base minimum to award. It all centers around your judgment as to what base he was attempting to achieve and then whether or not he achieved that base safely. In the OP, he was not trying to achieve 2B, so by default he was trying to achieve 1B and did so safely. Therefore, the obstruction is "ignored" and not minimum one base award.

Have a great day!
Leo

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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.