FED Obstruction

[Lapopez]

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?

[UmpJM]

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

[PeteBooth]

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

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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.

[MadCityRef]

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

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.

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?

[cookie]

"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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

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?

Originally Posted by NFHS.org

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

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.

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

[Lapopez]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

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

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.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

Thanks, that was very logical to me.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

**** The Fed Rules! Just Go With Obr Then We'd All Be Happy!

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by cookie

"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?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cookie

"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?

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.

[dash_riprock]

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.