Microphones for umpires?

[gotblue?]

Originally Posted by lawump

Assume this play happened without obstruction:

(1) R1, R2. O outs. Line drive to right field that one-hops the right field wall. R2 rounds third and is held up as F9 gets ball back into infield quickly. R1 rounds second and keeps going to second (no doubt believing that R2 will easily score on a one-hopper to the wall). 2/3rds of the way to third, R1 realizes that R2 has been held up. R1 now scurries back to second base.

O.K. Now insert the obstruction:

(2) Same play as above, only R1 is obstructed by F6. The obstruction is pretty severe (there is actual contact between the players that significantly slows down R1). R1, after the obstruction, then goes 2/3rds of the third before realizing that R2 has been held up. R1 now scurries back to second base.

In the actual play (2), he is thrown out by inches diving head first back into second base.

Now the umpire asks, "if not for the obstruction, would R1 have been out?" (In otherwords, would R1 have been out if play (1) had occured instead of play (2) as I described them.)

Comparing play 1 to play 2. The answer is "no, he would have been safe. The obstruction cost him at least a few steps. He was thrown out by mere inches. If he had those few steps that he lost, he would have been safe going back into second." Thus, R1 is protected back into second.

Where the umpires screwed up, is when they failed to call "time" when the tag was applied to R1 as he was diving back into second base.

I guess I am in the same camp as Tibear. You ask us to "compar[e] play 1 to play 2". You say nothing about a throw to attempt to retire R1 at 2B in Play 1. Why do you assume that R1 gets back to 2B safely in Play 1?

It appears that your basis for ruling is that you are saying that R1, in both situations, would round 2B and run to the exact same point between 2B and 3B (say, for example, 30 feet from 3B), and then return to 2B. In that case, R1 in Play 1 will do that route more quickly than would R1 in Play 2, in that R1 was slowed en route (advancing) by the obstruction. So, if the obstructed R1 is tagged out on a close play, then under your scenario, he should be protected back to 2B, because the R1 in Play 1 who ran the same route without being obstructed would have made it back to 2B safely.

That is not what would likely happen in reality, however. The unobstructed R1 would be running full tilt toward 3B, and, at some point, would recognize that 3B is occupied, and would try to return to 2B. In that same amount of time, the obstructed R1 would not have advanced as close to 3B as did the unobstructed R1, as he was slowed by the obstruction. Thus, his retreat to 2B would be shorter. It is that "same amount of time" that I find to be important, in that this is probably about when it became clear that R2 was not going to advance to HP. Further, a runner who has been obstructed is more likely to be aware of the status of other runners than is the runner (unobstructed R1) who is motoring along assuming that R2 will advance to home and he (R1) will advance from 1B to 3B on a ball hit to the RF wall.

Whether you agree with that or not, I believe that the call/ruling could and should be based on something else that you [edit: or someone else] have referenced. The initial decision of the base umpire(s) probably was to protect R1 back to 2B, due to 3B being occupied, in the event that the defense was able to quickly get the ball to 2B and tag R1 while he was still overcoming the effect of the obstruction. The instant that he, in a separate and discrete act, took off for 3B, I would have his protection back to 2B disappearing, in that the obstruction had no effect on his ability to return to 2B at that point.

As Tibear has said, poor baserunning is the root cause of this mess.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by gotblue?

I guess I am in the same camp as Tibear. You ask us to "compar[e] play 1 to play 2". You say nothing about a throw to attempt to retire R1 at 2B in Play 1. Why do you assume that R1 gets back to 2B safely in Play 1?

It appears that your basis for ruling is that you are saying that R1, in both situations, would round 2B and run to the exact same point between 2B and 3B (say, for example, 30 feet from 3B), and then return to 2B. In that case, R1 in Play 1 will do that route more quickly than would R1 in Play 2, in that R1 was slowed en route (advancing) by the obstruction. So, if the obstructed R1 is tagged out on a close play, then under your scenario, he should be protected back to 2B, because the R1 in Play 1 who ran the same route without being obstructed would have made it back to 2B safely.

That is not what would likely happen in reality, however. The unobstructed R1 would be running full tilt toward 3B, and, at some point, would recognize that 3B is occupied, and would try to return to 2B. In that same amount of time, the obstructed R1 would not have advanced as close to 3B as did the unobstructed R1, as he was slowed by the obstruction. Thus, his retreat to 2B would be shorter. It is that "same amount of time" that I find to be important, in that this is probably about when it became clear that R2 was not going to advance to HP. Further, a runner who has been obstructed is more likely to be aware of the status of other runners than is the runner (unobstructed R1) who is motoring along assuming that R2 will advance to home and he (R1) will advance from 1B to 3B on a ball hit to the RF wall.

Whether you agree with that or not, I believe that the call/ruling could and should be based on something else that you [edit: or someone else] have referenced. The initial decision of the base umpire(s) probably was to protect R1 back to 2B, due to 3B being occupied, in the event that the defense was able to quickly get the ball to 2B and tag R1 while he was still overcoming the effect of the obstruction. The instant that he, in a separate and discrete act, took off for 3B, I would have his protection back to 2B disappearing, in that the obstruction had no effect on his ability to return to 2B at that point.

As Tibear has said, poor baserunning is the root cause of this mess.

Another poster in another place made these same points to me. I don't disagree with R1 having gone further toward third if he was not obstructed. I am not arguing with your logic. I'm just stating how this (former) MiLB umpire was instructed to call it.

Here is what I posted on the other discussion (In that discussion the other side had argued that my logic was wrong in that R1 would have gotten closer to third if he was not obstruction):

An example from J/R:

"R2 and R1, two outs. The batter grounds a ball toward the hole between F5 and F6. F5 dives for the ball, but cannot reach it and it gets by him. R2 has to sidestep F5 to avoid contact -- obstruction has occurred. The F6 is able to field the ball and he fires to F3, but the B/R is safe. After rounding third aggressively, R2: (my emphasis)

stops (past third base) and is returning to third base as F5 gloves a throw from F3 and tags R2 returning to third. Ruling: Time is called. R2's return to third is protected."

In the above example, one could argue, as you have in the original play, that R2 rounded third base too far, and that that is his own fault (that is, the obstruction did not cause him to round third base as far as he did) and thus the "out" should stand. However, that's not what J/R says.

Also note that in this play from J/R, the obstruction occurred between second and third, BUT J/R is going to protect R2 back to third (he's not even between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, but he's still going to be protected.) The bottom line in the J/R play is that the obstruction cost him a step or two, and if R2 was thrown out going back into third by a step or two, then "time" is going to be called and the runner is going to be protected back into the base.

I'm not arguing/defending the logic. I'm just stating how this (former) MiLB umpire was instructed to call it.

[gotblue?]

Lawump,

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I really "did not get it" from your initial post, and I am not 100% sure that I "get it" entirely from the situation described in J/R (I do not have this, nor do I have anywhere near the training that you have had), but I will try to learn from it, and it certainly makes the crew's ultimate ruling somewhat more understandable.

Possibly, the concept is that the obstructed runner is likely going to push the advance envelope a little more to "make up for lost ground" caused by the obstruction, so the protection to the retreat base is going to be more than otherwise expected (expected by me, at least).