Obstruction/confusion

[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)?