Obstruction

[tibear]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Well, I admit, I gave a short response cause I thought it was kind of funny after the last post with you tibear.

Mcrowder - 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).

Is this not true? 2-22 of FED reads "Obstruction is an act(intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play..."

Now I read this as physical in the literal sense of the word. Certainly in this sitch the pattern of play has been changed, but not because of any physical act by the fielder (if you wish to read physical as contact between two parties).

As I said, this comes from a clinician.

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

(edited for clarity)

Sorry, but your clinician didn't know what he was talking about if he told you there has to be physical contact to have obstruction. That is plain wrong!

If a defensive player "impedes or hinders" the progress of a runner (when the defensive player doesn't have the ball, not imminently waiting for a thrown ball....) then it is obstruction. No physical contact need take place.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by tibear

Sorry, but your clinician didn't know what he was talking about if he told you there has to be physical contact to have obstruction. That is plain wrong!

If a defensive player "impedes" the progress of a runner (when the defensive player doesn't have the ball, not imminently waiting for a thrown ball....) then it is obstruction. No physical contact needs to take place.

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.

[UmpJM]

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.

Tuss,

From JEA:

Fielders may obstruct runners without actually touching them. For instance, an infielder who is not in the act of fielding a thrown ball cannot stand in the runner's projected base path forcing him to "go around" the fielder to avoid contact. This would be obstruction.

JM

[LMan]

From J/R:

"Obstruction can occur during a batted or thrown ball. Contact is not necessary." (pg. 119)

Another question for your clinician- if OBS requires contact, how can certain codes explicitly define and penalize both visual and verbal OBS?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[aceholleran]

The obvious exception to the INT/OBS nomenclature is the dreaded "catcher's interference," of course.

How many of us haven't done a game where potential OBS occurs and the offensive, offended coach cranks out, "THAT'S INTERFERENCE!"

The R1 veering off play is the first time I have ever heard the complaint flip-flopped!

ace

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.