Obstruction question
 

FED. B1 hits a ground ball to short. Shortstop's throw is to the home plate side of first (bad throw). B1, seeing it's a bad throw and F3 is coming off the bag toward him, veers around F3 who ever touches the bad throw. The umpire calls "That's obstruction". The throw goes to the fence, and B1 goes safely into second base. The defense then appeals B1 missed first base, which in fact he did. The offensive coach says he missed it because of being obstructed by F3.

What's the call?

JJ

I believe you've still got to touch first. Since there's a deadball, the runner can't go back and touch. Therefore, he is out on appeal.

I agree with tjones1, the BR is out on appeal. Even though the BR was awarded 2nd base, it is the BR's responsibility to legally gain the awarded bases. BR is out on proper appeal. BR has the opportunity, once the ball is declared dead to touch 1b then proceed to the awarded second base.

To put another perspective on it, if BR hits a home run (s)he is awarded four bases, by rule. If (s)he misses 1b on his/her way around, (s)he can be called out on proper appeal. Same concept as what you are asking.

-Josh

The pro interpretation has been (someone will post a reference) that if the obstruction clearly caused the missed base, the appeal will be denied.

It's my rule of thumb and how I would rule in a FED game, too.

I think it's if the obstruction PREVENTED a touch of a base the appeal will be denied.

What deadball? The OP doesnt say that...

Agreed.

Maybe I'm off my rocker here but doesn't the runner have the responsibility to legally touch each base? If I were the runner I would have touched 1B then put the pressure on the umpire to award me second because of the obstruction. I understand that I might be pushed 5 feet out of the baseline to avoid contact at 1B but the umpire has already acknowledged there is obstruction (according to the post). I could easily make a case that I would have legally gained 2B if I was not obstructed.

I could very well be wrong, though, but I firmly believe the BR must touch 1B or possibly be called out on proper appeal.

-Josh

You're right. I misread it.

This reminds me of "I strenusouly object" from A Few Good Men. In other words.......so?

But you got me to dig out my BRD.

NCAA: If in the umpire's judgment, obstruction occurred near enough to a base so that it prevented the runner from conveniently touching the bag, a subsequent appeal at the base would be denied. [Fetchiet, 4/20/2001]

OBR: Fitzpatrick agreed with Fetchiet (12/26/01) but added the umpire must be absolutely certain the obstruction kept the runner from the base.

FED: Silent. Carl recommends you treat the same as NCAA, and I agree.

Good enough for me. I retract what I believed and will go with this.

In the play the denfense waited til the batter/runner was standing on second base then the coach called time and appealed the runner missing first base.

some of the talk on this play dealt with 8-2-5 NFHS

that says:
If the ball becomes dead and the runner is on or beyond a succeeding base, he cannot return to the missed base and, therefore, is subject to being declared out upon proper and successful appeal

some think this will cause the batter/runner to be called out

In reading rule 5 :

5-2-2 when the ball becomes dead:

b. a runner may return to a base he left to soon on a caught fly ball or that was not touched during a live ball;
1. A runner who is on or beyond a succeeding base when the ball became dead,or advances and touches a succeeding after the ball became dead,may not return and shall be called out upon proper and successful appeal (8-4-2a)

c. any runner may advance when awarded a base(s) for an act which occurred before the ball became dead provided any base in (b) above is retouched and all bases are touched in their proper order(8-1-2,8-2-1,8-3,8-3-3d, note)

My question is, will (c) not allow the runner to return and touch base since with the Obstruction call you are going to award one base, I feel that the umpire should after playing action is called inform the runner and coaches we had Obs at first base and I am awarding the runner second base, It will then be up to the player to go retouch 1st base nad then go to second, If he chooses to just remain at second not thinking he missed the bag at first nor the coach see it, Then allow the defense appeal and call the runner out.

All runners are required to touch all base(s) in proper order or they may be callled out on appeal.

Thoughts?

:D It's the legal mindset I have. I am going to blame this one on my education. I know, I'm a drone that can't think for myself. I use stupid phrases like that all the time. You're not the first person to point it out ;) When I'm in a "drinking establishment" people like to point out my commonly used legal phrases.

BTW, "you can't handle the truth!" Never used it, but someday I will.

-Josh

Once the runner achieves the base he was entitled to with the obstruction, isn't the obstruction then simply ignored? He then advances at his own risk, correct? So, I don't believe I would call anything (dealing with the obstruction) because, during the delay-dead ball situation, the runner to advanced safely to the base I would have awarded. I would then rule on the proper appeal for missing first base.

-Josh

So you will just honor the missed base appeal and call him out? the coach is going to say that the OBS caused him to miss the base

Honestly, I would call him out on proper appeal.

In my years of playing baseball, I've been obstructed a few times. One situation comes to mind. I was on first base and there was a deep line drive to the right field corner. As I was attempting to round third to go home, the third basemen obstructed my path to touch the base (about 5 foot from the base). I, then, had to make a sweeping arch around the third baseman to touch 3B before heading home (there still was a little bit of contact as he moved directly into me). Although I knew that deviation was going to make the play at home close, I went home regardless because I knew obstruction should be called in this situation.

I was thrown out by a good five feet. Time was called when playing action was complete and I was awarded home on the obstruction. I could have easily just skipped touching 3B and went home but then I've committed an infraction in my eyes. As a runner, I don't believe missing a base is anyone's fault unless the fielder is laying on the base.

Just my opinion

-Josh

Why are choosing to ignore authoritative interpretations from several sources that contradict your ruling?

I'm assuming you mean the post below, I'll address it briefly. BTW, I'm not trying to be the guy to argue the opposite point to be an a$$. Just don't want to be pointed out to be that guy. Just want to discuss this thoroughly.

Convenience? When does convenience come into a play? It would be convenient if the bases were 80 feet for me and 110 feet for everyone else. I won't argue if that's the official interpretation of NCAA but I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation. (With that said, I would call it in accordance of the interpretation). But for argument's sake, anytime there is obstruction it is inconvenient to the runner. By nature obstruction is always inconvenient. Does that mean if obstruction occurs close to the base (within 5-8 feet), the runner should just take off to the following base without attempting to touch the base? I would think not.

Can I ask this...If the runner would have stopped at first, in the OP, because they wanted to touch first, would you award the runner second? I would as an umpire.

Secondly, if you had a play that I mentioned in post #16 and the runner made it home successfully, wouldn't you just ignore the obstruction? Or would you stop play after everything was said and done and then call obstruction on the third baseman and award the runner what he already gained :confused: I think not. Once the runner gains what he is entitled by the obstruction award, the obstruction is simply ignored...correct?

I would apply that to the OP. Once he has gained the award he is entitled, I would ignore the obstruction. Does anyone follow my logic (whether it's right or wrong)?

Thanks for the great discussion everyone!

-Josh

Does the reference say to apply the call to Fed or are you assuming that that is the intent?

For the NFHS umpires it does not tell us to apply NCAA ruling to a Fed Game
and I am not being stubborn or not willing to apply the interp. that way... but for the "elders" here please explain "C" to me please

"c. any runner may advance when awarded a base(s) for an act which occurred before the ball became dead provided any base in (b) above is retouched and all bases are touched in their proper order(8-1-2,8-2-1,8-3,8-3-3d, note)"

I just have a a problem ingoring a rule in Fed about missing a base when the penalty is you will be called out upon appeal,
Just looking for some insight

I was assuming that was the intent of that post. I am getting some additional opinions of this situation from my local association. At this point I think I've covered everything I can think of.

-Josh

Maybe to clarify this play a bit as JJ and I spoke about this play before he posted it.

As the BR veered around F1 in front of and on the home plate side of the bag, BR veered only to avoid the "train wreck". After he veered by F3 he ran by first base not attempting to touch 1st base as he passed it.

With this information, it appears that most agree the runner would be out on appeal. (this was a high school game)

Also, does anyone know the play or plays involved in the ncaa interpretations given. Just curious...........

In FED, if the runner is on or beyond the "next base" when the ball is declared dead, it's too late to go back and correct the error (missed base, or base left too soon). There's an exception for a ball intentionally carried or thrown out of play (intentionally done just to prevent the runner from returning).

So, in the OP, if the ball becomes dead at the end of the play (and it neend't become dead, but it might become dead) with BR standing on second, it's too late for BR to retouch first.

Given umpjong's clarification (BR passed first and *could have* touched it, but didn't), then the obstruction didn't *cause* the missed base, so BR is out on the appeal.

yikes, you might have an ejection here or a coach who screws you on their rating (in MN coaches rate us for FED)...even if you get it right.

Any umpires who cares how a coach will rate them while working a game should pack it in, now.

I had 2.5 visits from a coach yesterday. One on a balk he didn't see, one between innings on a good pickoff move from the other pitcher that he claimed was a "double move" and a balk (it wasn't) and the third on a play at second where the ball hit the heel of F4's glove and fell out and they wanted the out "on the transfer" even though F4's other hand was 2 feet from the glove and the ball never even got in F4's glove. That was a half-visit, cause my partner stopped him before he even came out and told him to get back in the dugout. Seriously, the ball hit the heel of the glove and fell to the ground and there was never a motion to try to get the ball out of the glove, mainly cause it was never in there.

I had a flawless game yesterday and the coach will rate me low. He should rate me highly because I didn't eject him on the second visit, and I could have, had I been so inclined, but instead used game management skills to get him the hell off the field.

If I let myself care about ratings, I'll lose my mind. I'm an above average umpire, according to the coaches ratings. Barely. If I was rated any higher, I'd be wondering what I'm doing wrong. I only care that my ratings are high enough to get me a sectional (level before state tournament) every season. It seems they are, for now.

Bob- I agree that the rule states he can't return when the ball is dead if he is on 2nd, But just to continue this are you going to ingore the Obstruction the defense hindered the runner.

The best I can remember was it is interpretate as the runner can not reach the base with out stopping or returning. we were discussing this and the opinion was if the runner can take "a step" and still get to the base then he is required to otherwise the obstruction prevented him from getting to the base at all.

I'm calling it according to my previous answers.

I had a game this week that may rival your low rating.

Play one
Home team gets picked off at first. Rather routine but 1st base coach wanted to make an issue that just because the ball beats the runner doesn't mean he's out. No biggie.

Play two
Next inning home team on defense. Attempted pick off at first. Throw beats R1 but tag does not. "Safe". From the dugout I hear that I called them out on the same play etc etc

Play three

Home team on def. R1 stealing 2nd. throw beats runner but a bit high and F6 misses tag as he swipes. "Safe no tag" I'm sure from 120' it looked like a tag Home team not happy

Play 4

Home team on def.
Attempted pickoff at 2nd. F6 busting to the bag, throws a little behind him but clearly had R2 leaning the wrong way. F6 reaches back gets the ball swipes the tag and I clearly see daylight between glove and R2. "Safe No tag"
Home team clearly not happy.

Play 5

Bottom of 8th 1 out R1 down by one.

Attempted steal, throw to the 1st base side. F6 makes a great play gloving ball while jumping over runner. he gloves it right at the hip of R1 and while airborne applies tag on the backside of R1s hip while R1 is a good foot off base. I give it my best crow hop and bang him "OUT"

1st base coach crosses into fair territory coming towards me letting me know it was a bad call and I appropriately point to him and tell him to get back in his box. I love doing that, it's the same thing I tell my dog at home after he pees on the floor.
HC comes out to ask what I saw and then tells me how disappointed he is in me. "You're better than this, I'm really disappointed in you. There was no tag"

Play 6

Next batter doubles.
After play is relaxed 1st base coach yells at me "The game should be tied, that one's on you"

That's when I ejected him.

What do you think my rating will look like from that team?

I'd probably say as I was walking away, "Yeah, with your superior vantage point way over there in the dugout, you can tell that. I wish my vision was as good as yours."

I'm a bit burned out with all the stupidity I've seen this season, I gotta tell you.

[QUOTE]Of Coarse PROVIDED he is NOT obstructed.

Example: B1 hits a gapper. After rounding first base F4 is BLOCKING second base. The BU signals that's OBS.

The runner having NO access to second goes around the fielder en route to third base.

Defense appeals B1 for missing second base.

Based on your response above you would allow the appeal.

If that's how you rule word would get around and coaches would instruct their fielders that when you are the BU to purposely Obstruct runners AND deny them access to the base because on appeal they would get the out.

Remember the defense is the one who screwed up so FULL benefit should be given to the runner. Generally speaking whenever there is OBS at the Bag area, the fielder by his actions is preventing the runner from touching the base.

Also, this is amateur baseball and MC supercedes OBS so you do not want runners "pushing" shoving etc. players. When I played there was no such thing as a player denying access to a base if you "catch my drift" but that was back then. Today is different.

Pete Booth

Not good. Wish we could rate coaches and have their job depend on it...

Coaches rating umpires is the stupidest idea. It is done in CT as well. Why not have a couple more evaluators that go around who actually know umpiring come rate you? Take a test before every season that gives you a "rules" grade?

Having coaches rate umpires creates a systematic breakdown of incentives for the umpire.

I recall when I was in high school, I was the head basketball manager. Our HC was a big whiner, and he made it my duty to fill out the evaluations every week because "they don't listen to me anymore". I told him back "they never should have."

Same thing applies to baseball.

I agree that the benefit of all doubts in this situation goes to the runner, I've never disputed that fact. I am not going to penalize the runner in this situation at all if he is doing what he is suppose to be doing (IE, legally touching each base). Of course, I am not advocating MC. However, each runner is obligated to legally touch each base. Are you suggesting (question is not directed at anyone, fyi!) that if the runner is obstructed 7/8 up the third base line going home, the runner should just walk to the dugout without attempting to touch home? In a sense, he doesn't have to touch home because "obstruction occurred near enough to a base so that it prevented the runner from conveniently touching the bag, a subsequent appeal at the base would be denied." :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

Let me walk though the play one last time and remove all doubt what I would or would not call. I'll try to cover everything. ;)

Hit to F6 and BR takes off down to 1B. SS makes a wild throw towards F3 that pulls him off the bag and into the running path of BR. The throw then goes over F3 and to the fence.

{Pause}

At this point, I have NOTHING. I would then gather other information about the play. Is F2 backing up 1B? Since I've already seen the ball reach the fence, that is easy information to obtain.

If F2 is backing up 1B, would BR have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B, if he had not been obstructed? In most cases (of course this is a matter of opinion), he would not have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B! Of course that depends on the field, where the ball ends up, etc...

If F2 is not backing up 1B, would BR have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B, if he had not been obstructed? In most cases (of course this is a matter of opinion), he would have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B! Of course that depends on the field, where the ball ends up, etc...

(For example, if the ball bounces off the fence directly back to F3 there is no need for F2 to be backing up. BR did not have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B.)

In other words, with the information provided in the original post, you have to assume a lot of things. You MUST see the play unfold to properly assess whether obstruction occurs. The runner must have a legitimate attempt to advance. The fact that the runner had to veer around F3 does not entitle him to run as far as we wants to advance, it is up to the judgment of the umpire to determine how far he would have advanced if he had not been obstructed

{Un-Pause}

BR then directly, without touching 1B, goes to 2B and arrives without being putout.

{Pause}

If I called obstruction (see above if I would or not), I call nothing. He has reached the base which I believe he would have advanced if he had not been obstructed. The ball is still live. Therefore, 5-2-2 doesn't even come into play at this point because this is not a dead ball situation.

{Un-Pause}

The defense then makes a proper appeal that BR missed 1B

{Pause}

I would then acknowledge the proper appeal and call BR out for missing 1B.

{Un-Pause}

The offensive coach says he missed it because of being obstructed by F3

{Pause}

I agree Coach, the BR did not touch 1B. Each runner is obligated to legally touch each base before advancing to the next.

(I would then express my opinion about whether obstruction occurred)

In my opinion, F3 did (or did not) obstruct the BR. I believe this because the BR would (or would not) have had a legitimate attempt to advanced to 2B if he had not been obstructed. However, by the BR reaching the base I would have awarded, if obstruction had occurred, the obstruction is ignored. No harm, no foul.

On the other hand, if your BR would have properly touched 1B and stayed there (or then attempted to advance unsuccessfully), then he would have been awarded 2B (if I believe he would have had a legitimate attempt to advanced to 2B if he had not been obstructed).

If coaches want to talk about the way I rule, they are more than welcome to do so. Because I will rule the same way every time! If there is obstruction, the runner will be awarded all the bases I believe he would have advanced to if he had not been obstructed. I [B]ALWAYS[B] give the benefit of the doubt to the runner in this case, however.

Does that clear anything up or just cause confusion? Are we going to agree to disagree on this topic?

-Josh

[QUOTE]The point I think you are missing is "legally touching each base"

Legally touching each base means that the runner has an unimpeded way to Touch the base in the first place.

If due to the OBS the runner is Prevented from touching that base then he is no longer obligated to touch it.

I am not talking about a play in which B1 is obstructed by F4 half way between first and second and then saying that because of the OBS B1 does not have to touch second base.

I am talking about plays at the base area where the runner did not touch the base because he was Obstructed from it.

I gave an extreme example to try and proove my point to you meaning F4 COMPLETELY Blocking second base causing the runner to alter his path.

Pete Booth

For the love of God, snip!

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.

Too Long To Quote!
 

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 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.

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

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. ;)

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

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

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?

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

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

Well said, JM.

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.

One easy consideration, since most OBS occurs near a base: did the OBS occur before or after the runner rounded (and missed) the base?

If before, I'm giving the runner the benefit of doubt. If after, the runner will be out on appeal.

Of course, OBS can occur away from a base, in which case the runner will still need to touch the bases legally.

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 :rolleyes:

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

-Josh

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

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

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

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

I am with you :D

-Josh

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

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.