Obstruction and coach's interference video

[UmpJM]

Forest,

Where on earth do you get the idea that a runner cannot be awarded an advance base on a Type B Obstruction call?

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

...on type b you can protect him somewhere, but you can't play god. ...

I would suggest that the rules say you CAN..."play god", that is.

The rule (and Official Interpretation) say that the umpire is to make a ruling that "...nullifies the act of obstruction...". Now in the video, were we to pretend that the 1B Coach did NOT shove the runner towards 2B after he returned, it is clear that he would have EASILY reached 2B had the F3 not obstructed him.

Since the BR was "hell bent" for 2B at the time of the Obstruction, it seems plain to me that the proper ruling on this play (again, absent the 1B coach's interference) would be to award the BR 2B after action relaxed. Because that is the ruling that would nullify the obstruction. Leaving him at 1B would allow the obstruction to prevent his advance.

A materially different situation from the Tejada play you reference because it was by no means clear in that situation that Tejada would have reached home absent the obstruction.

edited to add...

To me it's essentially the same principle applied in this case play from the MLBUM:

(6) Runner on first base, no one out. On a hit-and-run play, the batter hits a fair ball down the right field line. In rounding second base and heading for third, the runner from first collides with the shortstop and falls down. Because of the collision, the runner is not able to advance to third base and returns to second as the ball is being thrown back to the infield. Had the runner not collided with the shortstop, the runner would have easily advanced to third base.

Ruling: Obstruction is called when the collision occurs, but the ball remains in play because no play was being made on the obstructed runner at the moment he was obstructed. "Time" is called when all action has ceased, and the obstructed runner is awarded third base because that is the base he would have reached had no obstruction occurred. The batter-runner would also be placed at the base he would have reached had no obstruction occurred (either first or second, depending on the umpire's judgment).

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I would suggest that the rules say you CAN..."play god", that is.

I think you're picking a nit.

Let's just agree that there can be disagreement on what "playing God" means.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I think you're picking a nit. ...

Garth,

I didn't mean to.

The point I was trying to make is that bobbybanaduck seems to suggest that it would be improper to award the BR 2B because he never "completed" his effort to reach 2B after he was obstructed.

I believe that is not a proper criteria for determining the correct ruling on the play.

Forest seemed to have been suffering under the misapprehension that a runner can NEVER be awarded an advance base on a Type B obstruction - which the case play I cited shows is patently wrong.

Somebody doesn't understand how to rule on Type B obstruction under OBR. Maybe it's me.

Havng seen the video, where would you have placed the BR if his 1B coach hadn't shoved him towards 2B?

JM

P.S. I would concur with your assessment of U3's performace on the play in question.

[Steven Tyler]

Call the obstruction and the interference in the order they happened.

B/R is out.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Forest,

Where on earth do you get the idea that a runner cannot be awarded an advance base on a Type B Obstruction call?JM

I have corrected everything that was wrong with my original post.