Obstruction question

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Agreed. My biggest issue with blanket call this obstruction is that by rule you are required to award at least one base. If the catcher is staying back there and picks up the ball immediately, there is no way possible he would have advanced. Or in your interpretation, does it not matter if he wouldn't have advanced? I just have trouble calling obstruction no matter what because I am giving the runner second always. Does that make sense?

-Josh

1) The obstruction happened before first, so the minimum award is first, not second. So, if F2 is backing up the play, you don't need to put the runner at second.

2) Suppose the contact happened just after first (for whatever reason). As long as BR was making a legitimate attempt to advance (even if stupidly), the it's obstruciton and the award is second. That's the FED rule (other ruels codes vary on this). There is a case play or interp to the effect that if BR is slowing down / merely rounding the base and there's minor contact, that is not obstruction.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) The obstruction happened before first, so the minimum award is first, not second. So, if F2 is backing up the play, you don't need to put the runner at second.

2) Suppose the contact happened just after first (for whatever reason). As long as BR was making a legitimate attempt to advance (even if stupidly), the it's obstruciton and the award is second. That's the FED rule (other ruels codes vary on this). There is a case play or interp to the effect that if BR is slowing down / merely rounding the base and there's minor contact, that is not obstruction.

Thanks Bob, I can live with that. I've looked everywhere for a case play or interpretation from the FED but can't seem to find anything.

My hesitation with this all is if the same sort of contact occurred just after the base, F2 was backing up, and the runner wasn't going to advance anyways (they were just rounding a little bit). If the umpire calls obstruction (just on the action that there is contact) his hands are tied, he has to be awarded one base, by rule.

Obstruction is always a matter of opinion and I would never question anyone on their opinion (unless they are tv commentators). I'm just uneasy about a blanket statement this is always interference and it may not be in all cases. As a young official, I would have read this and called it obstruction with any contact at first (which is not the correct call). Maybe I was just naive

I think the horse is dead now, I can stop beating it unmercilessly.

-Josh

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jdmara

My hesitation with this all is if the same sort of contact occurred just after the base, F2 was backing up, and the runner wasn't going to advance anyways (they were just rounding a little bit). If the umpire calls obstruction (just on the action that there is contact) his hands are tied, he has to be awarded one base, by rule.

That's why FED says you shouldn't call OBS in this case. So your hands aren't tied after all.

[Welpe]

Josh, just as a reminder, you can have obstruction without contact.

[jdmara]

mbyron & Welpe -

I absolutely agree with both of you. It's just another detail that points out that obstruction is more than just the act (whether it's contact, etc...). The offense also has to be put at a disadvantage. That's why I believe it is important to wait a second of two...then determine whether obstruction has occurred. A lot of young umpires want to "jump the gun" and call it immediately after the contact.

Thanks for pointing out those two important details.

-Josh

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Josh, just as a reminder, you can have obstruction without contact.

Josh, just as a reminder, you can have contact without obstruction.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Josh, just as a reminder, you can have contact without obstruction.

I am with you

-Josh

[jdmara]

I hate to throw this thread back up the to surface since it was hotly debated but I was just reading Jim Evan's Diamond Challenge (which I would consider a reliable source of rules interpretation) and ran across the following situation:

"The runner from first is stealing second. The second baseman dives in front of the base to field the low throw. The throw is in the dirt and rolls into center field. The runner leaps over the outstreched fielder...misses the base....and advances to third safely. The defense appeals the missed base.

Ruling:

2.00 Obstruction/7.10 (b)

Since the fielder was in "the act of fielding" the throw...He is not guilty of obstruction. The runner is out on proper appeal. The runner failed to advance legally."

Just thought I would share it. I was honestly shocked to see this interpretation since I had pretty much forgot this thread.

-Josh

[noleump]

this was my first year in high school rules (fed) . Definitly not an authority. I have the runner out on appeall. I would have signald delayed dead ball ,and verbilized obstruction. in the first post you said he made it to 2nd safely. I would then go back to my position . when the appeal was made he is out.