Is this questionable?

[rngrck]

F2 is 6 ft up the 3rd base line awaiting throw from F7 for a apparent play at plate. Runner comes down the line and with elbows high, knocks down F2 as the ball arrives. PU calls malicious contact on R and obstruction on F2 with resulting ejection and awarding a scored run. Is this really OBS? Didn't R have opportunity to go around F2 within the 3 ft restriction?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rngrck

F2 is 6 ft up the 3rd base line awaiting throw from F7 for a apparent play at plate. Runner comes down the line and with elbows high, knocks down F2 as the ball arrives. PU calls malicious contact on R and obstruction on F2 with resulting ejection and awarding a scored run. Is this really OBS? Didn't R have opportunity to go around F2 within the 3 ft restriction?

Within what "3 ft restriction?"

Under FED, malicious contact supercedes obstruction, so the run shuoldn't have been awarded.

NCAA allows both penalties to be enforced (even though they don't call it "malicious contact."

Under (pure) OBR, it wouldn't be obstruction since a play was imminent, and they don't really have a collision rule.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Within what "3 ft restriction?"

Under FED, malicious contact supercedes obstruction, so the run shuoldn't have been awarded.

NCAA allows both penalties to be enforced (even though they don't call it "malicious contact."

Under (pure) OBR, it wouldn't be obstruction since a play was imminent, and they don't really have a collision rule.

Jaksa/Roder considers the play offensive interference.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Jaksa/Roder considers the play offensive interference.

Mind explicitly listing which part of J/R considers this "offensive interference"?

[canadaump6]

From J/R: A runner has interfered with the flight of a thrown ball, a throw absent a batted ball, or a tag attempt only if such runner: 1) Commits an intentional action to interfere that disregards his try to get to a base safely and 2) Such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag.

A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on a base safely. Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere include...

It then lists examples of interference with a thrown ball and tag attempt.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Mind explicitly listing which part of J/R considers this "offensive interference"?

I believe he was referring to this section of J/R:

Chapter 13: Offensive Interference

B. Thrown Ball

It is interference by a runner on a thrown ball only if such runner:
1. commits an intentional action to interfere that disregards his try to get to a base safely, and
2. such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag.

NOTE: Interference on a thrown ball does not require contact. Note also that a runner is not exempt from interfering because he has touched or passed home. Such runner can still interfere and cause the out of another runner.

A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on a base safely. Actions that disregard this intent, and show, rather, an intent to interfere include:
a. grabbing, tackling, or assaulting a fielder,
b. intentionally standing and blocking a fielder,
c. waving arms,
d. slapping a fielder's glove or mitt,
e. going beyond (over-running) second or third base in a try to hinder a fielder,
f. sliding more than a body's length from a base in a try to hinder a fielder,

e.g. R1, one out. The second baseman fields a grounder and tosses to second where the shortstop tags the bag and is about to throw to first when R1: grabs his shirt, or slides into him two body lengths away from second, or goes beyond the back edge of second and roll blocks him, or waves his arms but does not contact ball or fielder.

In each case, the runner has shown by his actions and positioning that his intent is not to reach and stay on second safely, but to interfere with the shortstop's try to throw.

Sounds like the runner in the OP was interferring with F2 trying to tag him. The runner was not trying to advance to home plate and his sole intent was to crash the catcher, who was in the process of fielding the throw. JMO.

[SanDiegoSteve]

CU6,

Sorry for stepping all over your post. I think I found what you had.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Sounds like the runner in the OP was interferring with F2 trying to tag him. The runner was not trying to advance to home plate and his sole intent was to crash the catcher, who was in the process of fielding the throw. JMO.

You envision the play differently than I do. The reason I asked for the cite from J/R is that I visualize the play as one which would get no call in a MLB game. And I think J/R supports that with the phrase: "......disregards his try to get to a base safely......". I think the runner was clearly trying to reach home plate.

It is a stretch to call this play a "tag attempt". A tag attempt requires the fielder to have the ball in his possession. In the OP, the ball arrives as R2 knocks down the catcher. Think of ARod slapping at the fielder on his way to first-- that's interference with a tag attempt.

ozzy6900, I don't think anyone here is confused by the phrase "offensive interference". It certainly didn't cause me to challenge canadaump6, who is after all only echoing J/R's terminology. In baseball, we have umpire interference, spectator interference, and catcher's interference. None of those are the responsibility of the offense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Jaksa/Roder considers the play offensive interference.

I didn't envision the play that way in my mind's eye, but I can see how that could be what happened.

Still, relativley few leagues play under "pure OBR" (most have some "don't crash the catcher" rule), and the OP hasn't been back, so we don't know what really happened, or what rules code was being used, so we don't know whether the umpires were correct.

[johnnyg08]

Our modified OBR leagues use the NCAA collision rule at home and true OBR on 1b,2b,3b...under the NCAA collision rule, would we have OBS in this sitch?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Our modified OBR leagues use the NCAA collision rule at home and true OBR on 1b,2b,3b...under the NCAA collision rule, would we have OBS in this sitch?

The NCAA collision rule has nothing to do with whether there is obstruction -- only with how to deal with it if there is obstruction.

If you use the NCAA (or FED) obstruction rule, it's obstruction. If you use the OBR obstruction rule, it isn't.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by rngrck

F2 is 6 ft up the 3rd base line awaiting throw from F7 for a apparent play at plate. Runner comes down the line and with elbows high, knocks down F2 as the ball arrives. PU calls malicious contact on R and obstruction on F2 with resulting ejection and awarding a scored run. Is this really OBS? Didn't R have opportunity to go around F2 within the 3 ft restriction?

Did this actually happen? What level of ball?

-Josh

[PeteBooth]

As Bob says we need further clarification which you still did not provide.

First things first Fielders may position themselves anywhere they like.

F2 is 6 ft up the 3rd base line awaiting throw from F7 for a apparent play at plate. Runner comes down the line

Based soley on this description we do not know if in fact F2 obstructed the runner.

1. Did F2 even though 6 ft. up the line provide any access to the base? or was the base COMPLETELY blocked?

2. Was the runner obstructed? meaning you did not mention anything about the runner other than he came in with elbows high and crashed F2. Did the runner have to slow down, alter his path etc.

IMO, all we know based upon your description of the play is that the runner maliciously (using your terminology elbows high, knocks down F2) contacted F2.

As Bob said under PURE OBR I would have nothing as we see this type of play many a time at home plate. Pete Rose, Erstand, etc. come to mind.

Under most amateur rule codes this would be MC meaning the player will get Ej'd. In FED / NCAA (assuming no OBS on the part of F2) we would also get the out. As Bob said there is no MC rule in NCAA but a no collision rule which is similar but not the same as FED's.

In Summary: Without providing further info it is very difficult to answer

Pete Booth

[DG]

No further clarification needed for me. Flying elbows, with no intent to reach the plate will get you tossed. Except in the pros who are not concerned with catcher welfare.

I raised (reared) two catchers so call me biased. I can live with it.