Obstruction and Interference

[spots101]

Play #1 - BR hits ball into short right field. As he is rounding first he collides with F3 who is watching the ball and in the runners path. A few moments after the collision the ball (from F9) is caught at 2B. I did not call obstruction & send the runner to second because IMO I felt that the runner would not have made it to 2B despite the collision. Did I make the right call or should I have sent the runner to 2B no matter what?


Play #2 - B1 hits ground ball to F6. R1 on 2B times it just right to where he lets the ball pass right in front of him and this action causes F6 to misplay the ball. From my position (I was by myself) it appeared to me that the ball hit the runner. Therefore I called interference on R1. Did I make the right call?
Also, what if the runner jumps directly over the ball?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by spots101
Play #1 - BR hits ball into short right field. As he is rounding first he collides with F3 who is watching the ball and in the runners path. A few moments after the collision the ball (from F9) is caught at 2B. I did not call obstruction & send the runner to second because IMO I felt that the runner would not have made it to 2B despite the collision. Did I make the right call or should I have sent the runner to 2B no matter what?

IF BR was attempting to go to second, then it's obstruction. Much disagreement on whether an award of second is required.

IF BR was just "rounding the base and slowing down" (the usual case), then it's not obstruction.

Play #2 - B1 hits ground ball to F6. R1 on 2B times it just right to where he lets the ball pass right in front of him and this action causes F6 to misplay the ball. From my position (I was by myself) it appeared to me that the ball hit the runner. Therefore I called interference on R1. Did I make the right call?
Also, what if the runner jumps directly over the ball?

If you thought the ball hit the runner, you made the right call.

In the second play, if the runner is "just advancing" then it's nothing if he jumps over the ball. If the runner does "anything unusual," then I call interference if the ball passes under or behind him.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by spots101

Play #1 - BR hits ball into short right field. As he is rounding first he collides with F3 who is watching the ball and in the runners path. A few moments after the collision the ball (from F9) is caught at 2B. I did not call obstruction & send the runner to second because IMO I felt that the runner would not have made it to 2B despite the collision. Did I make the right call or should I have sent the runner to 2B no matter what?

The scenario, I did not call obstruction because IMO I felt that the runner would not have made it to 2B despite the collission is NOT a factor in whether or not you call obstruction - IT IS a factor when you are awarding bases.


What I mean by that is: If F3 is in the base-path and IS NOT in the act of making a play, and causes the runner to slow down or avoid (go around him / her), you signal Obstruction. Since No play is actually being made (the ball is still in the outfield), this is Type "B" Obstruction.

You wait until play ends or the defense makes a play on the obstructed runner and then you call TIME. If as you say you felt (judged) that R1 would have been out at second EVEN if NOT Obstructed, then you would protect back towards first ONLY.

In any event the Obstrcucted Runner gets SOME protection be it the "advanced to" base or "retreat to" base.

Also, as Bob mentioned, a simple bump does not in itself constitute obstruction. On most plays B1 now turned R1 will make that wide turn rounding first trying to "draw" a cheap Obstruction call similar to basketball when the defender will Fall down trying to "draw" a charge call from the official.

Side Note: In FED, the Obstructed Runner ALWAYS gets at least a 1 base award.


Play #2 - B1 hits ground ball to F6. R1 on 2B times it just right to where he lets the ball pass right in front of him and this action causes F6 to misplay the ball. From my position (I was by myself) it appeared to me that the ball hit the runner. Therefore I called interference on R1. Did I make the right call?
Also, what if the runner jumps directly over the ball?

If the ball hit the runner, then it's interference. If the runner stopped allowed ball to pass and then continued, I have NO interference unless the runner did something like waving his / her arms in front of the fielder.

Pete Booth

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by spots101
Play #1 - BR hits ball into short right field. As he is rounding first he collides with F3 who is watching the ball and in the runners path. A few moments after the collision the ball (from F9) is caught at 2B. I did not call obstruction & send the runner to second because IMO I felt that the runner would not have made it to 2B despite the collision. Did I make the right call or should I have sent the runner to 2B no matter what?

Since the runner was only rounding first and not making a legitimate effort to advance to second, this would be type 7.06(B) obstruction. Point at the infraction, say, "That's obstruction," and then protect the runner back to first base. Staying true to those mechanics will show everyone that you saw the infraction and ruled on it, even though the infraction had zero impact on the play.

If the runner was making a legitimate effort to advance to second, then the play is type 7.06(a) obstruction. Call time immediately and award the runner second base. Your judgment is irrelevant.

I will cite the defining case plays on request.

Play #2 - B1 hits ground ball to F6. R1 on 2B times it just right to where he lets the ball pass right in front of him and this action causes F6 to misplay the ball. From my position (I was by myself) it appeared to me that the ball hit the runner. Therefore I called interference on R1. Did I make the right call?
Also, what if the runner jumps directly over the ball?

If you saw the ball hit the runner then you made the right call - R1 is out.

If the ball did not hit the runner, then traditionally the runner is allowed to continue running without breaking stride. If he hesitates, stutter-steps, or does anything but continue his advance normally, you may have justification for interference.

[spots101]

Thanks guys for taking the time to explain that to me. I really appreciate it. Jim, could you cite the case plays please? Thank you again.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by spots101
Jim, could you cite the case plays please? Thank you again.

From Jim Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated:

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field, slows down as the right fielder prepares to throw the ball into 2nd base, and then bumps into the 1st baseman who is not paying attention to the runner while the throw is going to 2nd.

Ruling: Since the runner was not making a legitimate effort to advance to second, this should not be considered type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The obstruction should be signaled and then enforced under the penalty provided by 7.06(b) umpire's judgment.

Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field. The 1st baseman is not paying attention and obstructs the B-R as he rounds 1st. In the umpire’s judgment, the B-R was going to try for 2nd. The throw to second is perfect and, most likely, the B-R would have been put out.

Ruling: Regardless of the B-R's chances to reach 2nd safely, the defensive team is obligated to allow unimpeded progress on the base path. In this case, the 1st baseman is guilty of type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The B-R is awarded 2nd (at least one base)...the penalty provided under 7.06(a).

[Edited by Jim Porter on Mar 1st, 2002 at 01:28 AM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by spots101
Play #2 - B1 hits ground ball to F6. R1 on 2B times it just right to where he lets the ball pass right in front of him and this action causes F6 to misplay the ball. From my position (I was by myself) it appeared to me that the ball hit the runner. Therefore I called interference on R1. Did I make the right call?
Also, what if the runner jumps directly over the ball?

Spots, you will often see this play (or those similar to it) when officiating. Sometimes it is interference, and other times it's merely R2's need to avoid getting hit with the batted ball (per rule).

Evans in the JEA under 7.08(b) states:

Any action, however, that is taken by the runner which is palpably designed to interfere should be ruled interference.

What he is saying is if it appears to you (you judge) that he is intentionally trying to interfere, then provide that runner the credit for being successful in his attempt to interfere and make the interference call. Realize, that you are judging intent and supporting it with the JEA's statement.

In your example, since you state you felt the ball struck the runner before passing a fielder, then the correct call definitely is interference. However, let's suppose R2 did his little "mambo" in front of F6 and you now have to decide if he interfered.

One standard I consistently apply is that if R2 does his "mambo" and takes off running allowing the ball to pass behind him (or he jumps the ball), then I quickly and loudly rule the interference before the ball even arrives to F6. If the runner were fearful of being hit (the excuse they will always tell you), then WHY did he delay his effort and still decide to advance BEFORE the ball passed in front of him? His delay only cost him time of getting out of the way of the ball sooner if he was advancing before the ball got there. To me, that proves his intent to interfere by attempting to hinder the sight or thoughts of F6.

However, if R2 does his "mambo" and allows the ball to pass in front of him (putting himself at risk at 3B), then he has now bought himself the excuse that he was worried about the ball hitting him and waited for it to pass. By allowing the ball to pass in front of him, he has now legitimized his excuse for waiting.

Finally, if R2 runs to 3B without hesitation and avoids extremely close proximity to the fielder (he should not make it appear as if he intends to crash the fielder), even if he must leap the ball, then I have no interference. He is doing what he is supposed to be doing in attempting to safely acquire his advance base.

Those are the standards that I apply, and I feel they are supported well by the rule and by the JEA.


Just my opinion,

Freix