Obstruction/confusion
 

Fellas, can you please help me out with this.
on a clean base hit to right field, as the batter is rounding 1st base he is obstructed by the 1st baseman. in my opinion he would not have gotten to 2nd safely. my question is: are we giving the runner 2nd base?
please help me with this

FATUMP,

OBR, no; FED, yes.

JM

FED rules you would have to give him a base by rule. This is a delayed dead ball.

If playing under OBR guidelines, then its also a delayed call, but there is
type A (play being made on runner) and type B (play not being made)

Under type b the umpire gives the runner what he thought he would have gotten absent the obstruction so he could remain at first. If there is any doubt though, give him the extra base is the guideline that I've used.

Hope that helps

Thansk
David

Depends, need more information on OP
 

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

Leo,

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

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

The rule change was not a rule change. It was an editorial change that clarified the obstruction rule. It read, in part, "...When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to make a play, or a fielder without the ball fakes a tag, if the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire then the obstruction is ignored..."

As I understand it, we didn't have any rule support for ignoring Obstruction. Now we do.

However, this does not change the fact that in FED, you still award one base beyond the base last legally aquired when the obstrution occured.

But, there's the rub
 

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

How can you make an award of an obstruction call that has been ignored? You can't. That's exactly why this rule change was made. To bring the Fed obstruction rule more or less in line with OBR.

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.

Leo,

The FED Obstruction rule is materially different from the OBR Obstruction rule - and the editorial change did not change that.

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.

JM

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!

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.'

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

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".

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

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)?

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.