Obstruction question

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I haven't changed my position. If the runner is obstructed and misses the base directly because of the obstruction, I'll never uphold the appeal, at any level.

What's convenient to me is strictly my judgment.

I'm not trying to change your position Rich. I think it's great we are discussing this in detail. Although if the obstruction happens at home plate, you aren't going to uphold an appeal at home if the runner just walks to the dugout without touching home? Assuming he abandoned his efforts.

Originally Posted by BigTex

If you see obstruction, call obstruction, then figure out where to place runners. The criteria for calling OBS does not include wether or not he had a chance to go to second, or advance to another base. If he is obstructed, call it and then let things play out. If at the end of the play, the runner did not attain what you felt he would have without the obstruction, then award appropriately.

I'm just going by all the articles I've read. For instance:

http://embua.wordpress.com/2008/04/2...baseball-nfhs/

Most articles and the rules state that the award is what "the runner would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction." Chances are if he wouldn't have advanced, I'm going to assume it's incidental contact. Just like in basketball, not all contact is penalized. It's part of the game sometimes.

Have anyone found a FED interpretation similar to this situation? Thanks everyone

-Josh

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Chances are if he wouldn't have advanced, I'm going to assume it's incidental contact. Just like in basketball, not all contact is penalized. It's part of the game sometimes.

Not to put words in BigTex's mouth, however what I think he is trying to say is that you shouldn't be trying to judge what a runner might obtain when obstruction occurs. When you observe obstruction occur, that is a fielder without the ball impeding a runner's attempt to advance, you should only be making the call "That's obstruction!". As the play progresses, you then need to evaluate what base you will be protecting the runner to. Now obviously, contact doesn't always equal obstruction but that's why they pay you the big bucks, to figure these things out.

Try not to over think it, you will be doing yourself a favor.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Most articles and the rules state that the award is what "the runner would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction." Chances are if he wouldn't have advanced, I'm going to assume it's incidental contact. Just like in basketball, not all contact is penalized. It's part of the game sometimes.



-Josh

I understand what you are saying with this, but when the contact occurs is when you decide if it is it isn't OBS. In basketball, if the contact doest't affect the play, you pass on the whistle. In this situation, see the contact, if you think it is OBS, call it, then if he would not have advanced, you just play on. If you think he would have advanced, award accordingly.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by BigTex

I understand what you are saying with this, but when the contact occurs is when you decide if it is it isn't OBS. In basketball, if the contact doest't affect the play, you pass on the whistle. In this situation, see the contact, if you think it is OBS, call it, then if he would not have advanced, you just play on. If you think he would have advanced, award accordingly.

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

[UmpJM]

Josh,

Different rule codes have different applications of the principles of obstruction.

Under FED rules, the obstructed runner runner is ALWAYS awarded at least "one base beyond" the point of obstruction.

Under OBR or NCAA, the runner is awarded (at least) "one base beyond" if he is being "played upon" at the time of obstruction or if a BR is obstructed before reaching 1B. Otherwise, the obstructed runner may or may not be awarded bases depending on the umpire's judgement of what would have happened had the obstruction not occurred.

Under FED and NCAA, the ball remains "in play" following the obstruction, regardless of whether the runner was being "played upon".

Under OBR rules, the ball only remains in play if the runner is not being played upon at the time of obstruction.

Regardless of the rule code, the penalty has no bearing on the decision as to whether or not obstruction has occurred.

JM

[Gmoore]

So the majority think the appeal should be denied If the runner missed the base due to obstruction by the first baseman? And obstruction supercedes touching the base(s) in proper order?

[UmpJM]

Gmoore,

That is correct. If, in the umpire's sole judgement, the runner would have touched the base absent the obstruction, the miss is "disregarded".

A principle similar to the miss of a "dislodged" base.

If the runner was obstructed, but, in the umpire's judgement, he "should" have touched the base anyway, a proper appeal should be upheld.

As they say, "Sometimes, you just gotta' umpire."

JM

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Gmoore

So the majority think the appeal should be denied If the runner missed the base due to obstruction by the first baseman? And obstruction supercedes touching the base(s) in proper order?

If obstruction causes the runner to miss the base, I am quite comfortable in going with established authoritative interpretation and denying the appeal.

As they say, "Sometimes, you just gotta' umpire."

Well said, JM.

[Dave Reed]

Adding to the pile of authoritative opinion:

J/R says: "If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his miss of such base cannot be upheld."

An umpire gets to judge whether the miss was caused by obstruction, but the idea that all obstructed runners are obligated to go back and correct the miss is wrong.

[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.