Obstruction: Interesting

[canadaump6]

I was reading Jaksa and Roder's manual and was surprised by a couple of the interpretations on obstruction:

Obstruction on a batted ball: A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction.

Obstruction on a thrown: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction.

Why must a fielder disappear immediately after missing a batted ball, but not after missing a thrown ball? What is the intent and spirit of this rule? And why is this interpretation not covered in the OBR rulebook? And what happens if a fielder misses a thrown ball, lands on a sliding runner, and lies on top of him for 2 or 3 seconds? This would be obstruction correct?

[socalblue1]

Your missing a key thing here (One often must hunt through multiple sources. One of the great things about baseball).

On a batted ball that the fielder still has an opportunity to play (Common interpretation is the ball is within a step & reach) he is still protected. Roder holds that once the fielder is unable to play the ball he immediately loses all protection.

Evans takes a more pragmatic view: "An infielder who attempts to field a ball but misses shall be given a reasonable amount of time to clear the runner's path before obstruction is ruled. This is based on umpire's judgment."

Evans:

7.06 Situations: The batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman...he deflects the ball and it rolls several feet from him The runner from first collides with the second baseman as he goes after the ball. Is this interference by the runner? RULING: On the contrary...this is obstruction by the second baseman. Since he had a chance to field the ball but muffed it out of reach...he may not impede the runner. (According to pro interpretations, a fielder still has a right to field the batted ball if it is in his "immediate reach"...the guideline generally used is “a step and a reach.”

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I was reading Jaksa and Roder's manual and was surprised by a couple of the interpretations on obstruction:

Obstruction on a batted ball: A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction.

Obstruction on a thrown: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction.

Why must a fielder disappear immediately after missing a batted ball, but not after missing a thrown ball? What is the intent and spirit of this rule? And why is this interpretation not covered in the OBR rulebook? And what happens if a fielder misses a thrown ball, lands on a sliding runner, and lies on top of him for 2 or 3 seconds? This would be obstruction correct?

Here's my take:

On a batted ball, the fielder has absolute protection. Therefore, he must absolutely disappear once he mis-plays the ball (by more than a step and a reach).

On a thrown ball, the fielder does not have absolute protection, so he need not absolutely disappear (iow, the runner might be so close that it's impossible for him to disappear).