Obstruction

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder (not counting any forms of obstruction that may be verbal).

That is incorrect in all codes but most notably FED where Malicious contact would supercede the OBS call.

You do not want runners (ala the PROS) having contact with Fielders in order to call OBS.

In FED, even if the fielder is standing "right in front of you" you cannot simply "plow" into him otherwise as mentioned even though the runner was obstructed they would be declared out for Malicious Contact.

Another rule of thumb when calling infractions that has aided me throughout my career.

Is each "party" doing what they are supposed to.

In the OP, the runner was doing what he was supposed to but the fielder was not. F3 cannot impede or alter the path of the runner. He /she has no business being where they were in the OP. Classic OBS

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Speaking of obstruction, had this occur last night in a 14U game; no outs, R1 at 1B, batter hits a one-hopper to F4 who flips to F6 for the easy front end of the double play. R1 sees he is clearly out and peels off toward right field. F6 stumbles after crossing the bag, then bobbles the ball as he regains his balance and tries to throw to 1B (he clearly had possession at 2nd base, so the out stands). But his momentum has now carried him well toward right field several steps such that R1 is now in his path again for the throw to 1B. F6 double-pumps then throws late, safe at 1B on BR.

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

Sounds like you made the correct call

[TussAgee11]

Appreciate the help guys. Thanks alot. I apologize to all the umpires who have worked games with the teams that have been trained to think this isn't obstruction.

Thats a bad mistake on my part. Again, thanks for the help.

[3appleshigh]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Speaking of obstruction, had this occur last night in a 14U game; no outs, R1 at 1B, batter hits a one-hopper to F4 who flips to F6 for the easy front end of the double play. R1 sees he is clearly out and peels off toward right field. F6 stumbles after crossing the bag, then bobbles the ball as he regains his balance and tries to throw to 1B (he clearly had possession at 2nd base, so the out stands). But his momentum has now carried him well toward right field several steps such that R1 is now in his path again for the throw to 1B. F6 double-pumps then throws late, safe at 1B on BR.

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

In no way shape or form was this obstruction, even if the runner had not peeled and cause a normal play to double pump could you ever have OBSTUCTION here.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

Well, you booted it in that the base runner cannot obstruct. He can interfere, but obstruction is still a defensive penalty only. The coach should have argued for interference, and still he would have been wrong, as R1 did nothing wrong.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Speaking of obstruction, had this occur last night in a 14U game; no outs, R1 at 1B, batter hits a one-hopper to F4 who flips to F6 for the easy front end of the double play. R1 sees he is clearly out and peels off toward right field. F6 stumbles after crossing the bag, then bobbles the ball as he regains his balance and tries to throw to 1B (he clearly had possession at 2nd base, so the out stands). But his momentum has now carried him well toward right field several steps such that R1 is now in his path again for the throw to 1B. F6 double-pumps then throws late, safe at 1B on BR.

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

Fritz, make sure you know the difference between obstruction and interference, even when neither exists.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by Fritz
Speaking of obstruction, had this occur last night in a 14U game; no outs, R1 at 1B, batter hits a one-hopper to F4 who flips to F6 for the easy front end of the double play. R1 sees he is clearly out and peels off toward right field. F6 stumbles after crossing the bag, then bobbles the ball as he regains his balance and tries to throw to 1B (he clearly had possession at 2nd base, so the out stands). But his momentum has now carried him well toward right field several steps such that R1 is now in his path again for the throw to 1B. F6 double-pumps then throws late, safe at 1B on BR.

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

In no way shape or form was this obstruction, even if the runner had not peeled and cause a normal play to double pump could you ever have OBSTUCTION here.

You guys really meant to say interferance here, didn't ya.

Edited: You guys are fast on the post

[Fritz]

yeah, sorry guys, I of course meant interference (though the coach was calling it obstruction and I corrected him at the time, and then said it still didn't apply).

[jicecone]

In Fritz's post, why is the runner not out for interference?

He may have try to avoid contact, but he also "altered" the play to first.

?????????? Interference does not have to be intentional????????

[LMan]

Originally Posted by jicecone

?????????? Interference does not have to be intentional????????

INT has to be intentional with a thrown ball (in this case).

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE=jicecone]

He may have try to avoid contact, but he also "altered" the play to first.

It was F6 who caused his "own alteration" not R1. According to the OP r1 veered away from the play meaning at the time F6 touched the bag he had a "clean shot" to throw to first. He then stumbled etc.

Also, interference on a thrown ball requires intent as opposed to a batted ball which requires no intent.

Pete Booth

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Seems like my clinician was wrong given some of your guys responses - but I'd like to read any other rulings on this from casebooks/manuals so I can understand better. Thanks.

2.22.1b Says it all - no contact required.

2.22.1 SITUATION B: B1 hits the ball into the gap. He rounds first and heads to second base. F6 blocks the base (a) while the outfielder still has the ball, (b) after F6 catches the ball, or (c) F6 is in the immediate act of catching the ball. RULING: Obstruction in (a). Legal in (b) and (c).

[Fritz]

Also, interference on a thrown ball requires intent as opposed to a batted ball which requires no intent.

That is why we ruled the way we did; the runner tried to get out of the way of the original play at 2B. He, thru no INTENT of his own, ended up back in the line of the throw. If he had intentionally moved back in the way, then we would have banged BR out for R1's interference. As it was, he was just standing a couple of steps onto the outfield grass mesmerized at F6's gyrations to regain control of himself and the ball and then boom, finds he is now "in the way" again.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Is there a casebook ruling that I should be aware of?

FED 8.3.2I "Contact does not have to occur for obstruction to be ruled."

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw.

We don't call runners out for obstruction.......................ever! There could possibly be a case made for runners interference here. Without seeing the play unfold in real time it's hard to give a definitive ruling.


Tim.