Obstruction2
 

R2 - 0 out - OBR

Runner gets in a rundown between 2B and 3B.

Runner is obstructed by F6 in going back to 2B slips, falls, and doesn't get back.

Obstruction is called on F6...does the runner simply get to return to 2B or is he awarded 3B? OBR ruling.

PBUC manual on page 45 states: "Furthermore, the obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond his last legally touched base at the time of the obstruction." How is this interpreted?

johnnyg,

In OBR, obstruction on a runner who is in a rundown is always considered "Type A" Obstruction, and, therefore, the runner is awarded one base beyond his position at the time of Obstruction.

In your sitch, the R2 gets 3B.

JM

okay thanks...

Let's look at another way...if this was FED...I don't think that there is a Type 2 OBS...so would the runner always get another base??

johnnyg,

FED does not distinguish between Type A (obstructed runner being played upon) and Type B (obstructed runner not being played upon) Obstruction and the obstructed runner is ALWAYS awarded at least one base beyond his position at the time of obstruction.

JM

EXCEPT [according to the Rules lecture this year] for certain weird TWP-like circumstances where R gets where he would have got absent the OBS, so's we ignore the OBS [OK, I'm obviously paraphrasing here]. Only example ever given was R1 is obstructed coming back to 1st on a run-down, but nevertheless is safe on 1st: do not award 2d, 'cause R1 reached the base he would have reached, absent the obstruction.

But in OBR, doesn't Type 1 OBS immediately stop the play and that's why you award them the next base...because if play stops because of the Obstruction (OBR), they can't get back to the base last reached because we have killed the play at the time of the obstruction...In FED, I believe OBS is a delayed DB, then you award after the play is stopped or the runner obstructed is called out...those are my thoughts...others please chime in...

cb,

Huh?!?!

I don't know who was delivering your FED rules lecture, but their advice was simply wrong.

Under FED, an obstructed runner always gets at least one base beyond his position at the time of Obstruction. Whether he was attempting to advance or not is not relevant to this minimum award.

johnnyg,

Correct (more or less): OBR Type A Obstruction is an immediate dead ball. Under FED, any obstruction is a "delayed dead" ball (per FED terminology).

JM

No. R1 goes to his advance base in FED, direction of travel is irrelevant.

Correct! In FED, R1 leading off into 2ndry. If he is obstructed returning to 1st, he goes to 2nd! And all obstruction in FED is equal to Type B in OBR.

JM:
There is, I understand, some difference of opinion about this, which one hopes will be cleared up in the next FED Casebook. Before getting into any big argument, I should first state that I've never seen an actual play where the application of the "new" interp. would be appropriate.

The rub seems to be the language, added to 8-3-2 in 2006 [I think], that "If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored." This does not change the principles you and LMan refered to: direction does not matter, and the award for obstruction is a minimum of one base to the obstructed runner.

As it was explained to me: "if the runner achieves the base he was attempting ..." when, for example, going back to 1st - and is safe - why, then he wasn't "really" obstructed; so "...then the obstruction is ignored." "Ignored" = no award.

Supposedly, the language was inserted to deal with certain "no harm- no foul" situations, such as might arise in OBR Type B obstructions: like where BR rounds 1st and collides with F3 coming back to the base, and there was no possibility of him reaching 2d on the play, but he returns safely to 1st notwithstanding the "obstruction" by F3. If the runner coming back to his original base is obstructed and tagged out [he does NOT "...achieve the base he was attempting ..."], then the obstruction is not "ignored", and the award remains one base from his original position, iow- his advance base.

I do NOT know if this is actually what the Rules Committee meant, and I know that several well-informed and respected people, including Bob Jenkins, disagree; but this is certainly what they appear to have written. And since they went to some trouble to give emphasis to the 2006 "clarification" in the 2007 materials, I have to believe it means SOMETHING. Remind me sometime to PM you about my theory that Baseball rules are based on a model of restitutionary, rather than retributive, justice :D .

Carter

I agree that's the rub. That language was added (or so I believe) because some umpires would award an *additional* base as a "penalty" for the obstruction (F3 obstructs BR as BR rounds first. BR reaches second safely. Smitty awards third, even though BR never would have reached thid on the play).

Whoever added the words didn't consider the play under discussion here (R1 obstrcuted while returning to first, but reaches first anyway). The rule needs the word "advance" somewhere.

As explained a while back by FED the interpretation is that a runner in a rundown, or even diving back to a bag from a large lead was obviously "attempting" the advanced base, not the base from which he left, or in these cases, returning.

that's a good way to describe it to a coach when he comes out and argues why I'm giving him the base when he was diving back to 2B or whatever base in a rundown...lots and I mean LOTS of people think direction has everything to do with the OBS base awards...

How do you get that to a 5 word response to Coach?

"One from last legally obtained base". darn, 6 words.