Result of Collision at First

[dnorthen]

I want make sure I am clear on what should be called here.

F3, reaching for an errant throw towards home plate collides with the Batter/Runner legally running in the 3' lane before the BR reaches first base. The ball comes free from F3's glove and the injured BR cannot get up to touch first base before F2 picks up the loose ball and tags the injured BR.

Is the BR out or are there any circumstances here that allow him to gain first base safely?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by dnorthen

Is the BR out or are there any circumstances here that allow him to gain first base safely?

Only if the umpire incorrectly kills the play for the injured player. Otherwise there's no way of not calling the BR out.


Tim.

[thumpferee]

I believe I just read a ruling regarding this play in the NFHS newsletter.

If F3 is not in possession of the ball, obstruction should be called. The reasoning was not to penalize the BR because of an errant throw by the defense.

Before we just use to say, hey that's baseball. But now with the new obstruction rule, we may have to look at this play differently.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dnorthen

I want make sure I am clear on what should be called here.

Which rules code?

This is nothing in NCAA and OBR. Might be something in FED.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Which rules code?

This is nothing in NCAA and OBR. Might be something in FED.

I agree that it might be something, somewhere in FED, Bob. FED has created another mess with this though. We've decided, association wide, to still allow a train wreck to occur on an errant throw that takes a fielder into the runners base path, without an OBS call. My belief is that it's within the spirit of the rule to do so...........


Tim.

[ODJ]

Defender in the path of a runner without possession of the ball is obstruction. That's what's new in '08 Fed.

[DG]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

We've decided, association wide, to still allow a train wreck to occur on an errant throw that takes a fielder into the runners base path, without an OBS call. My belief is that it's within the spirit of the rule to do so...........

Interesting. An association-wide decision to ignore a 2008 FED rule change on obstruction.

[Cub42]

If you do not have obstruction on F3, you let the play go through and then call B/R out when he is tagged as you described

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ODJ

Defender in the path of a runner without possession of the ball is obstruction. That's what's new in '08 Fed.

In the OP the fielder had the ball at the time of constact. The ball came loose as the result of the collision. No OBS.

Let the play continue.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by DG

Interesting. An association-wide decision to ignore a 2008 FED rule change on obstruction.

DG,

Tim's association's decision strikes me as entirely consistent with the following from the 2008 Fed Rulebook (p.68, POE, Obstruction)

...Plays where the ball, fielder and runner all converge at the same point - the "train wreck" - are a part of the game. ...

JM

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

DG,
Tim's association's decision strikes me as entirely consistent with the following from the 2008 Fed Rulebook (p.68, POE, Obstruction)
JM

People {OBR, NCAA, FED, etc.} chose making the game as safe as possible for its participants long ago. FED is adopting this mandate to "clean up" before the trainwreck occurs, rather than after the collision. Similar to a FPSL at 2B or F2 blocking home prior to a play, the preventable collision at 1B is the next step to a safer game. The older "tangle/untangle" adage no longer safely meets the needs between interference or obstruction among participants. There will be other nonconforming attitudes that need to be adjusted throughout the course of application. "That's obstruction! Coach, he can't do that."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

DG,

Tim's association's decision strikes me as entirely consistent with the following from the 2008 Fed Rulebook (p.68, POE, Obstruction)



JM

Actually, the association's decision is ambiguous, at least as state by Tim. He mentions cases where the throw pulls the fielder into the path of the runner. Note that this is NOT what the POE says: the POE mentions the fielder, runner, AND THE BALL converging.

Two cases: throw is way offline, pulling the fielder into the runner's path, but the fielder cannot get the ball: this is OBS.

A train wreck: throw is a little offline, pulling the fielder into the runner's path, and the fielder has or might have the ball at the time of collision: this is NOT OBS.

Not every collision between fielder and runner is a "train wreck," if by that we mean to say that the fielder was not obstructing the runner.

I had a situation like this last weekend. R2 stealing, F2 throws over F5's head into LF. F5 lands on the runner, and I call OBS. Coach wanted to know why the contact wasn't incidental (that is, a "train wreck"), and I pointed out that the fielder didn't have the ball, so the fielder could not hinder the runner. Then he asked whether the contact was accidental, to which I answered yes, but accidental does not entail incidental.