Obstruction
 

Two situational questions with regards to obstruction:

1)A hitter hits an obvious multiple base hit, the first baseman stands about 2 inches from the "inside corner" of first base.(Closest to the pitcher)

Technically, the first baseman is allowing access of the entire base to the runner but in almost all situations the runner's baseline will be to use the inside corner to turn going to second and the defensive player must vacate the runner's baseline when he isn't playing a batted ball or imminently waiting for a thrown ball.

When I've seen this I've always called obstruction because I believe that anytime a defensive player(without the ball and not imminently waiting a thrown ball) slows the progress of a runner by standing on the runners basepath, obstruction has occurred.

Have I been correct in my interpretation of obstruction in this situation?

2) R1 and ball hit down the left field line. For whatever reason F4 is standing 10 feet inside a direct line between first and second and the runner plans on going to third. Normally the runner will take a wide path to get a better angle to proceed to third, however the runner cuts inside and towards F4 trying to "get slowed up" on his way to second to try to draw the obstruction call just in case the play at third is close. Do defensive players have an obligation of vacating the runners basepath even when runners deliberately run towards them since the runners have to right to establish their own basepaths?

No you haven't.

1) Plain and simple obstruction.
2) The fielder is required to allow the runner to use whatever basepath they choose... but a runner running at a fielder to try to draw an OBS call is no longer running toward a base. No OBS in that case.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Could you possibly expand on why you believe this interpretation is incorrect?

Why do you say this? The rules do not say anything about giving part of the bag, etc ... they talk about fielders in the runner's chosen basepath without the ball. The initial sitch that you replied to is a very simple and obvious example of obstruction.

tibear,

Tuss either misspoke or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Your 1st sitch is clearly obstruction - all codes, all levels, every day.

Mcrowder has given you a good explanation on your second sitch.

JM

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)

Tuss,

Your clinician told you wrong.

JM

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.

Please first go reread the rule you quoted and decide for yourself if you clinician's advice holds water... Then, read any number of posts on this site, by any number of solid umpires. Then, do your best to either educate your clinician or find out who above him would be better placed to educate him. This advice he's given you is 100% false, and the fact that he's teaching that is a detriment to our profession.

Exactly. No mention at all of the word contact. A "physical act of the fielder" would include standing ANYWHERE in the runner's path that "hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play". Forcing the runner to go around you is obstruction (assuming you don't have the ball). In fact, a runner taught as you have been would be assuming he needed to go through the fielder... and is likely to get tossed or ruled out for interference if he contacts the fielder intentionally with any degree of force.

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.

tibear, your assessment on #1 is spot-on, and Mike and JM have answered the second.

It's YOUR judgement as to whether the runner is being hindered or impeded by the fielder's actions (no contact required)...when there's no contact, this can be tricky sometimes. But, thats why you get the big bux.

Tuss,

From JEA:

JM

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?

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?

[QUOTE]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

Sounds like you made the correct call

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Edited: You guys are fast on the post

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).

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????????

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

[QUOTE=jicecone]


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

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).

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.

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

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.

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