Obstruction/confusion

[FATUMP]

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

[UmpJM]

FATUMP,

OBR, no; FED, yes.

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by FATUMP

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

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

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

[Uncle Ernie]

Originally Posted by Prince

OBR, no; Fed, depends
Refer to the 2006 NFHS rule change in 8-3-2.

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.

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

[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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Prince

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

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

[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!

[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.'

[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?

[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)?