Obstruction/confusion

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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."

[RPatrino]

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

Originally Posted by GarthB

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."

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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.

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.