Batter remains in the box. Obstruction or not?

[bkr43050]

I am hoping to get some clarification on a ruling that we have have incurred (yes I am a coach so take it easy on me ) in each of our first 2 ball games this season. The response we have received in each situation has been different which leads to further confusion. We have young, inexperienced umpires so we try to take that into consideration. However it would be great if they could to instructed correctly so that they can be consistent from one umpire to the next. So here is the situation. (Little League rules)

There is a runner on 3rd and a pitch results in a passed ball. The R3 comes to the plate and F2 is tracking down the ball at the backstop while F1 covers the plate. This is all status quo at this point. The batter (B1) never leaves the box nor makes an attempt to do so. In both instances the ball had bounced somewhat toward the 3rd base dugout and the batter is right handed which puts him in direct line of the play. The first time it happens F2 picks up the ball and starts to throw to F1 and stops because B1 is directly in between. The umpire was questioned as to whether it was obstruction and he determined that it was and he sent all runners back to original base (there was an R2 moved up to R3). Later after the game we were told that his ruling was not completely correct and that an attempt needed to be made on the play. So we instructed the F2 to throw the ball regardless of the B1 being present. So the next game when he gets the same situation he does as instructed and throws it only this time it gets by F1 by going up the 3rd base line a few feet. It appeared that F2 tried to throw wide of B1 but that is merely speculation. So this time nothing is called and again the umpire is questioned as to why it is not obstruction. This time we are told that the B1 is entitled to the box and can remain there so long as the ball does not hit him. My thought on this is that he has obstructed regardless of whether the ball hits him. I have looked back through several threads on here but have not found any discussions on this same situation. If there is already one here a simple point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance. I think this site is a great resource for educating both umpires and coaches.

[charliej47]

I will say at that age group if the batter is not doing anything but standing there, I have nothing. I will sumetimes tell the batter to get out of the way if I have time. ALL rule sets state that the batter can not disappear so he is protected if he does not do anything.

[bkr43050]

Originally Posted by charliej47

I will say at that age group if the batter is not doing anything but standing there, I have nothing.

It is probably appropriate to note that this is a 9-10 age group and that it is early in the season so undoubtedly you will have kids sort of lost in the excitement. However my take on it is that if the play is attempted and it is the umpire's interpretation that the B1 may have affected the play then I feel the runner should be sent back. Otherwise you are rewarding the kid who stays put and furthermore rewarding a coach who may not remind his kids to do so. Or is that beyond what the rules will allow an umpire to determine?

[ggk]

if the batter has time to vacate the box - and it appears as if he did in this sit - then he is not protected and subject to causing obstruction. if he can vacate he must. if he has no time to vacate - ie R2 is stealing third and a RH batter remains in the box, then he is ok. F2 must throw around him.

in your situation i'm not sure if a throw 100% necessary, but it would certainly help your ability to argue for an obstruction call here.

edit - i have no idea about LL rules. my interp is for fed, ncaa, obr. i don't know what differences LL rules might have

[bkr43050]

I can see where the throw would draw focus to the situation. And it would help the umpire determine whether there was a play that could have been made. Otherwise you could have coaches pleading for obstruction when the F2 never had the ball in time to make a play.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by bkr43050

I am hoping to get some clarification on a ruling that we have have incurred (yes I am a coach so take it easy on me ) in each of our first 2 ball games this season. The response we have received in each situation has been different which leads to further confusion. We have young, inexperienced umpires so we try to take that into consideration. However it would be great if they could to instructed correctly so that they can be consistent from one umpire to the next. So here is the situation. (Little League rules)

There is a runner on 3rd and a pitch results in a passed ball. The R3 comes to the plate and F2 is tracking down the ball at the backstop while F1 covers the plate. This is all status quo at this point. The batter (B1) never leaves the box nor makes an attempt to do so. In both instances the ball had bounced somewhat toward the 3rd base dugout and the batter is right handed which puts him in direct line of the play. The first time it happens F2 picks up the ball and starts to throw to F1 and stops because B1 is directly in between. The umpire was questioned as to whether it was obstruction and he determined that it was and he sent all runners back to original base (there was an R2 moved up to R3). Later after the game we were told that his ruling was not completely correct and that an attempt needed to be made on the play. So we instructed the F2 to throw the ball regardless of the B1 being present. So the next game when he gets the same situation he does as instructed and throws it only this time it gets by F1 by going up the 3rd base line a few feet. It appeared that F2 tried to throw wide of B1 but that is merely speculation. So this time nothing is called and again the umpire is questioned as to why it is not obstruction. This time we are told that the B1 is entitled to the box and can remain there so long as the ball does not hit him. My thought on this is that he has obstructed regardless of whether the ball hits him. I have looked back through several threads on here but have not found any discussions on this same situation. If there is already one here a simple point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance. I think this site is a great resource for educating both umpires and coaches.

Coach,

First of all I have to laugh. You are the first coach I have ever heard use the term "obstruction" when the violation in question is actually "interference." It is an inside joke among umpires that it is common among coaches that they use the word "interference" almost universally for everything, including "obstruction." For your information, obstruction (OBS) is a violation committed by defensive players (without the ball) who hinder a runner. Interference (INT) is a violation committed by offensive players who hinder fielders in the act of fielding the ball or making a play.

Now to your questions.... There is a rule that requires offensive personnel to vacate any area where the defense has be to make a play. This means that when a runner from 3B is attempting to score, the batter is NOT entitled to remain in the box. It does not give the batter immunity from INT "so long as the ball does not hit him." However, merely staying in the box is not by itself automatically INT when a runner from 3B is attempting to score. There has to be an actual interference and, if #1) the batter had an opportunity to move away, and #2) in the umpire's judgment his presence in the box caused increased difficulty or hindered the defense's play on R3, then an INT call would be correct.

If INT were called on a batter when a runner from 3B is attempting to score the penalty would be, if there is less than two outs, R3 is declared out (not sent back) and all other runners return to their base at the time of the pitch. If there is two outs, the batter is declared out and no run may score.

An important point to make is about condition #1 above, the batter had an opportunity to move away. The rules do not expect a batter to evaporate. The batter has the right to hit the pitch. So he can stay there if he wants to if he wishes to attempt to hit the ball. If the runner arrives at the same time as the pitch (impossible in LL) then the presence of the batter can not he held against him for an INT call. In LL games, where runners must stay on the base until the ball reaches the batter this situation is next to impossible. Once the ball passes the batter, he no longer has any reason to be in the box and should get out of the way.

However, if he does have a brain freeze and he does stay there in the box it is not automatically INT unless he actually interferes!

I hope this helps!

[bkr43050]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

Coach,

First of all I have to laugh. You are the first coach I have ever heard use the term "obstruction" when the violation in question is actually "interference." It is an inside joke among umpires that it is common among coaches that they use the word "interference" almost universally for everything, including "obstruction." For your information, obstruction (OBS) is a violation committed by defensive players (without the ball) who hinder a runner. Interference (INT) is a violation committed by offensive players who hinder fielders in the act of fielding the ball or making a play.

I knew somewhere along the way I would show my true "Coach" colors so I just decided to confess it up front. Now that I have been reminded of my improper wording I will be able to impress the umpires.

So what I am hearing is that my understanding of the rule is accurate. INT is a judgment decision made by the umpire and does not necessitate any contact. Therefore what we will continue to impress upon our catchers is to make the play regardless of the where B1 is. Put the onus on the umpire to determine whether the B1 interfered. As I said we are dealing with 9-10 year-olds so I have no problem with sending them back to the base early on as a learning experience but it helpful to note to our officials that the correct ruling once INT is called is actually an out. I just don't like to see the advantage given to the team that neglects the rule altogether.

Another thing I need to do is have a conversation with a league official and encourage him to have a rules review with their young umpires and make sure they are on the same page.

Thanks for taking the time to clear this up. And I am glad I could provide you with some humor in the process.

[[email protected]]

Coach, keep in mind that those posting replies disagreed to some degree--interference (AND obstruction) are judgment calls. Especially at the LL level, you should not expect a lot of consistency from umpire to umpire because of (usually) their age and experience. And if you are fortunate enough to get an experienced ump, he knows your kids aren't and is likely to cut some slack on plays such as you describe. If you move up--or your kids do--to HS levels, you will see more consistency. But even there, as evidenced by the very existence of this board, we will disagree as to how rules should be interpreted in varying situations. And just as importantly, we're human and will make mistakes, as will you and your players, even if any of us should make it to the majors. So welcome to the joys of a game with so many variables, I think I see something new everytime I work a game.

Scott (aka 4bases1bat)

[socalblue1]

At this age (9-10) only a simple test is required:

1. Did the defense have a viable play?

2. Was there a reasonable attempt to make that play? (F1 covering the plate & F2 with ball AND time to make a throw -OR- F2 returning to the plate with ball IN TIME to make a tag).

3. Did the batter get in the way?

Three yes answers = interference

[bkr43050]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Coach, keep in mind that those posting replies disagreed to some degree--interference (AND obstruction) are judgment calls. Especially at the LL level, you should not expect a lot of consistency from umpire to umpire because of (usually) their age and experience. And if you are fortunate enough to get an experienced ump, he knows your kids aren't and is likely to cut some slack on plays such as you describe. If you move up--or your kids do--to HS levels, you will see more consistency. But even there, as evidenced by the very existence of this board, we will disagree as to how rules should be interpreted in varying situations. And just as importantly, we're human and will make mistakes, as will you and your players, even if any of us should make it to the majors. So welcome to the joys of a game with so many variables, I think I see something new everytime I work a game.

Scott (aka 4bases1bat)

Don't get me wrong. I am not looking for a defense to rip the umpires when a call is made. I have played plenty of ball at many levels, enough to know that judgment calls are just that. What I was wanting to get was a clear understanding of how the rule itself is to be interpreted. I feel confident that I did. I was just discouraged in what I was hearing from the young officials and the fact that their interpretation of the rule was so drastically varying. I see this situation happen a few times every year. It would just be comforting to know that the league umpires were on the same page on how to address it.

Originally Posted by socalblue1

At this age (9-10) only a simple test is required:

1. Did the defense have a viable play?

2. Was there a reasonable attempt to make that play? (F1 covering the plate & F2 with ball AND time to make a throw -OR- F2 returning to the plate with ball IN TIME to make a tag).

3. Did the batter get in the way?

Three yes answers = interference

Using that reasoning process I would say that the first incident is not clear because F2 did not actually make the throw. On the second incident there was clearly a chance to make the play. F1 was properly positioned at the plate and the ball was being delivered ahead of the runner. The fact that F1 was partially behind B1 and the ball was thrown a few feet up the 3rd base line negated that chance. I feel that the second incident should have been called. The first one we should just chalk up to experience and tell the kids to make the play as best they can and let the umpires sort if out if something happens.

[chuckfan1]

...At this age group...probably nothing...
At higher levels...the further the ball gets away..the more I expect the batter to make some kind of attempt to get out of the way....After all, who put the ball there? The defense. So, Im not going to penalize the offense unless I really see something egregious.
If I see a batter make an honest attempt to get out of the way, and he gets conked by a throw from F2, Im probably going to have nothing. The defense put the ball back there.
.. But at this level....technically you can call interference, since it sounds like the ball went far enough for the batter to move. But since its judgement, score the run....at 9-10 the kids are only thinking if they want grape or strawberry sno cone after the game anyways....