WBC -- B/R misses 1B, collision, B/R out
 

Watching Dominican vs. Netherlands today and the B/R hits a ground ball to F5. The throw pulls F3 off of the bag, but B/R misses 1B and is subquently tagged out as F3 jumps and comes down w/ the ball. The umps got this one right, but I thought about an errant throw that would pull F3 toward home plate impeding the path of the B/R w/o the ball. What is the test for OBS on this type of play. B/R does have a duty to avoid contact right? What if during this type of play F3 has to dive and subquently covers 1B and B/R can't touch 1B?

What do you guys think/know? Thanks!

Under OBR you are not guilty of obstruction if you are in the act of fielding the ball.

And then there's the "interference" call by Eric Cooper, which was really obstruction. You would think there would be a rules clinic for these TV announcers. This guy has been around enough to learn the correct terminology. Now thousands of coaches around the country will scream "that's interference on the first baseman!" and the umpires will just ~sigh~.

Under FED it very well could be obstruction if F3's actions prevented (all) access to the base by BR.

In OBR, B/R has no "duty to avoid contact" when the throw draws F3 into his path.

A fielder in possession of the ball can block a runner's access to a base, including 1B. In fact, I don't know that there's anything a fielder in possession of the ball can do to commit OBS. (Maybe deliberately trip the runner?)

As Bob says, maybe Fed is different from OBR in this regard.

Despite having possession of the ball, a fielder may still obstruct. It's been done and it's been called.

Batted ball to right side of mound. F1 fields it and falls. With ball in glove, he reaches out and trips runner with bare hand.

MLB ruling: Obstruction.
Evans ruling: Obstruction
PBUC ruling: Obstuction.

How about without reaching out (an intentional act), how does he commit OBS. I can visualize your intentional example where he reaches out but not an unintentional example. Thanks for your help.

MrUmpire's example of an intentional trip with the other hand is of course OBS. My statement was poorly worded; that's not maybe, it's definitely OBS.

"How about without reaching out (an intentional act), how does he commit OBS?"

That's what I was thinking of. If the fielder has the ball, I think you'd have to contrive some preposterous scenario where he commits unintentional OBS. I can't think of one offhand.

It's interesting that OBS and INT are the subject of so many posts. Like everybody else, I see these infractions several times a season and try to be on guard for them, but this is such a change from when I played (1960s and early 1970s). Except for a few times when the bat hit the catcher's mitt, I don't remember a single OBS or INT call. (Of course, from high school through Legion, college, semipro, I can't remember a balk call, either.) Maybe my memory is faulty.

daaaaaaamn greymule--your "older" than dirt. What the hell field did you play on,,, field of dreams. They didn't even have grass or dirt back then. Don't worry, I am right there with ya.
You are correct in your assessment of all the things we talk about now that we did not talk about then. You can go to the PBUC website and pull up the history section. The first "Umpire Specialization Course" was held in St. Pete in 1969. I believe this is the one Brinkman, and Evans went to. Things have just kind of slowly snowballed from that first course to what is out there today.
There are many more manuals and instructional material out there today then there was back then. So, umpires are at least better informed then they were in the past. I'm sure some cranky, older than dirt, managers and coaches will tell you umpiring is just as bad today as it was then. In others words, not a dang thing has changed in umpire quality in their opinion.

I agree with your comments, but the post below yours has some good points too...I think that the instructional stuff out there is better and many times we'd have OBS/INT and it's simply not called. The most common place that I see INT is probably at home plate when R1 attempts to steal 2B...also, as you know, if there is an out, you ignore the interference...99.9% of the crowd never knew it was called.

You are so right. I think that some officials either do not understand what batter interference is or hope that it will just go away because the focus of the entire play happens at 2B. Many fans and players concentrate more on the play at second and miss what happens at the plate. I think sometimes there are officials that don't want to insert theirself on batter inteference because it can result in controversy. The easy way out is to let it go.

You got to "step up to the plate" when it is necessary.