FED Obstruction
 

So this year obstruction is one of the Points of Empahsis due to the new verbiage in 2-22. It's frustrating that the 2008 Baseball Rules by Topic still has the 2007 case book situation 8.3.2 Situation C. The actual case book has the correct new interpretation though.

My question is on FED obstruction in general. I started out years ago fully familiarizing myself with OBR which has the immediate dead ball for type A obstruction. FED is always a delayed dead ball and this is why I am having trouble with the first 3 sentences of 8-3-2:

1) When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction.

2) If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

3) The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

What is the precedence of these statements because they cannot be enforced at the same time? Since with a delayed dead ball an obstructed runner may get to the base he would have reached had there been no obstruction, do you ignore the obstruction or do you award the minimum one base?

Lapopez,

Trust me, you are not the only one who is uncertain about the proper way to apply these statements.

Here's how I think of it.

Under FED rules, if a runner is obstructed, he ALWAYS gets a minimum award of one base beyond his position at the time he was obstructed.

So, if the runner is obstructed while attempting to return to a base he has already acquired, he gets the "next" base.

If, despite the obstruction, the runner reaches a base beyond his position at the time he was obstructed, AND the umpire determines that was all he would have gotten had he not been obstructed, the obstruction is "ignored".

So, I would say the "order of precedence" of the three satements you pose is

3
2
1

JM

FED OBS

Sitch:

B1 hits a gapper and trys for a double. As he rounds first base he is obstructed by F3.

When we see the OBS infraction we signal and say that's OBS but DO NOT kill the play. In FED we wait until all playing action ends before we enforce.

Since B1 was obstructed after acquiring first base he is going to get at least second base.

Now B1 achieves second base and trys to strecth the double into a triple. Subsequently he is thrown out at third base.

RULING: Unless there is post obstruction evidence ie; The fielder bobbled the ball or mis played the ball the out at third stands

Why!

Because the runner achieved the base he would have achived absent the OBS.

IMO, FED is much easier to understand and enforce meaning the obstructed runner ALWAYS gets a minimum of a one base award from his position at the time of OBS and we wait until all action is ceased before enforcing. If the runner achives his one base minimum and advances further he does so at his own peril.

Pete Booth

To give a more specific example of the problem I have with the three statements occurs when a runner is obstructed returning to a base and successfully reaches that base. The rule says to ignore the obstruction in that situation. But it also says award a minimum of one base beyond his position at the time of the obstruction.

Pete, how about a slight twist to your situation--a more frequent occurrence. Instead of a gapper, it was a straight forward base hit in which there was no chance of B1 trying for or achieving second base. Nevertheless, as you wrote, as he rounds first base, he is obstructed by F3. Is that an automatic award of second base even though, had there been no obstruction, the runner would have achieved no further than first base, in the umpire's opinion? You probably can sense that I have a problem awarding second in this situation. I didn't learn the rule originally that this was an automatic award and I want to know if in FED it is.

PB,
If your runner tries for third and is thrown out by an eyelash, will you still call him out?
I'm more inclined to let the action of the players determine the award instead of deciding at the instant of the infraction.

Let me understand your scenario...you say the runner was not even trying for second, yet he was obstructed. What, then was he obstructed from?

"MadCity asks:

"PB (Pete Booth),
If your runner tries for third and is thrown out by an eyelash, will you still call him out?'"

In my view, if the BR is obstructed as he rounded first and his run is continuous all the way to third, AND then he is out on a very close play at third, I would think that the OBS back at first prevented BR from achieving his triple safely. In my judgement, if the BR would have made it, I would nullify the out (probably not have called it) and call BR safe at third due OBS.

Anyone else think along these lines on Pete's play?

The answer to your question is: incidental contact in this case would not be ruled obstruction, so the question of what the award is does not arise.

[QUOTE]Check out FED case play 8.3.2A

In FED, as I mentioned the runner whether returning to or advance from gets a MINIMUM of a one base award from his position at the time of OBS.

Another example:

F1 attempts a pickoff of R1. R1 is obstructed by F3 while trying to dive back into first base.

Even though R1 had no intention of going to second he is awarded second base. BTW this would be the same outcome in OBR (Type A OBS)

In order to better undertsand FED OBS I recommend you read the case plays.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]My whole point is the problem I have with the statement, "If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored." Apparently when returning, what I hear you saying, this is superceded by the one base award provision.

Thanks, that was very logical to me.

:D
You silly Canadiens. Actually there are some Fed rules that make better sense than OBRs but Alas! Fed is just trying to be like Big Brother NCAA.

You bet and wait until the Old Guard comes a hwlin' on this one. That's why no one has answered you.

It takes cahoonas to take the stance that the DEF is st00pid and OBS, invho, is a major DEF gap and that a good official will go out of his way to award in favor of the OFF. I'm going to place that BR safe at third with no problemo, Senor.

What poor officials want to avoid is placing themselves in an at risk judgment that is a coach comes out and wants to know how you could award 3B if the BR had not made it a close play. That, my freind, is where the poor umps slink back and the good umps stand up. ;)

I agree. I tend to think of obstruction as a "distance" penalty. When the runner is obstructed, I try to figure out "how far behind" he is, compared to where he'd be if he wasn't obstructed. If he's thrown out by less than that amount, I award the base. If he's out by more than that amount, he's still out (assuming this is past the minimum award -- one base in FED). And, the benefit of the doubt goes to the runner.

So, in Pete's play, if the runner is out on a close play, I'm awarding third. If F5 catches the ball while the runner is 45' away from third, he's out.

I share this view. The rule requires us to award any affected runner(s), the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Sometimes this judgment can't be made at the instant the obstruction occurs. The rule allows us to wait until the end of playing action to determine the award.

Great posts regarding the Fed OBS rule. I understand why Fed has the new rule but don't like the way it is supposed to be inforced in some instances. I have had a few this year that I don't like to award but have to due to the new rule. Ex; R1 gets back safely to 1B on a pick move by F1 but F3 has his size 15 foot across the leading edge of the bag prior to possession of the ball. In the years past, no problem, he was safe. Under new rule, R1 is supposed to be awarded 2nd. Is this what Fed wanted to achieve with this rule?

Yep. It doesn't matter if the runner worked his way around the obstruction, penalize the illegal act.

This no different than F4 blocking access to second on a steal and R1 working his way to the base before getting tagged.

Or, a criminal breaks into a house and discovers nothing worth stealing and leaves. He's still arrested for the initial act.

The "no harm, no foul" theory doesn't appy.

what do you think of this one

R1. Batter hits a double in the gap. R1, while rounding third base, is obstructed by the third baseman, and is caught in a run-down when the outfielder throws home. Meanwhile, the batter-runner has come all the way around to third base during the rundown and is standing on third base when R1 goes back safely into third. Two runners standing on third base. What is the call?

The call in FED and NCAA assuming playing action has ended meaning the trail runner does not try and retreat backwards is:

1. TIME
2. R1 is awarded home
3. You did not mention anything about the BR except that he is standing on third so BR stays there.

Under OBR when R1 got caught in a run down it is Type A OBS so as soon as R1 was caught in a run-down the call would be

1. TIME
2. R1 awarded home
3. Umpire judgement as to where to place the BR. You did not say where the BR was at the moment R1 got caught in a run-down.

Pete Booth

Score the run, BR= 3B.

Next.

HALT!

I have OBS and I'm moving the R to B2.

Coach: "How can you make that call?
Me: "Don't want to have me make that call, tell your F1 to allow free access to first."

Hi guys,

Lap I know I am late on this, but last year FED put a case book play in that says directly what others are telling you, if the BR is not attempting to go to 2B, "the obstruction is ignored."

Define more clearly what you mean by "while rounding" -- where the obstruction occurred.

If the obstruction was after R1 reached third, then I agree with Pete and FitUmp.

If the oabstruction was prior to R1 reaching third, and you think R1 would have scored absent the obstruction, then I agree with Pete and FitUmp.

If, however, the obstruction was prior to R1 reaching third and you were only protecting R1 to third, then the play stands. Since two runners are on the same base the trail runner (BR in this instance) is out when tagged.

My Bad kind of vague

R1 has past third. BR and R1 are both on third when tag occurs. Again both runners are tagged.
Hope this clears it up