Obstruction/Interference/Nothing???Discuss

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Dash,

You are employing "backwards logic".

The pertinent rules for determining "when" to kill it to make the award are:

2-22-1 ...When obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of playing action....

and

2-29-1 ...a unit of action which ... ends when ball becomes dead or pitcher again holds the ball while in pitching position

If there is a "loose ball" on the field and viable runners, the playing action has not ended.

JM

Doesn't say the ball can't become dead before then. And I still go back to 8-3-2: "...the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction..."

Had there been no obstruction, the ball would never have entered DBT. I think that permits me to disregard the 2-base award.

I'm off to the doc, back later. This is a good one.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Doesn't say the ball can't become dead before then. And I still go back to 8-3-2: "...the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction..."

Had there been no obstruction, the ball would never have entered DBT. I think that permits me to disregard the 2-base award.

I'm off to the doc, back later. This is a good one.

Backward logic again, dash. The guideline of "what would have happened" applies only to the question of where to put the runners. Since the base award in the OP is NOT for obstruction, but for sending the ball into DBT, this guideline is moot.

Why are you so eager to protect the defense from their own violations? Haven't they committed 2 in the OP?

[gfgartland]

A batter becomes a runner [...] when...

E. the catcher or any other defensive team player obstructs him. The coach or captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the UIC of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play. [...] Obstruction of the batter is ignored if the batter-runner reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base.

I want to say that you let the play go. Kill it when the ball goes to DBT and then give the coach/captain the option of 1st (obstruction) or 2nd (ball to DBT) for the batter.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

A batter becomes a runner [...] when...

E. the catcher or any other defensive team player obstructs him. The coach or captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the UIC of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play. [...] Obstruction of the batter is ignored if the batter-runner reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base.

I want to say that you let the play go. Kill it when the ball goes to DBT and then give the coach/captain the option of 1st (obstruction) or 2nd (ball to DBT) for the batter.

gfgartland,

Please tell me you're kidding.

The rule you are referencing has NOTHING to do with the play in question because the batter has ALREADY become a runner prior to the obstruction occurring.

JM

[gfgartland]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

gfgartland,

Please tell me you're kidding.

The rule you are referencing has NOTHING to do with the play in question because the batter has ALREADY become a runner prior to the obstruction occurring.

JM

I felt, if for nothing else but context, that it was best to place the entirety of the rule that I was citing. The information that should be gleaned from it is that it is not our decision to make. The coach/captain decides where he wants his runner.

This might also open up lines of thinking (beyond OP) in regards to other runners on at the time.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

... The information that should be gleaned from it is that it is not our decision to make. The coach/captain decides where he wants his runner. ...

gfgartland,

Stop it man, you're killing me!

Have you ever actually umpired a baseball game?

Ever seen one?

I can't believe you are this clueless.

Uhh... what exactly does being "Assistant Chief Umpire" entail, anyway? Just curious.

JM

[gfgartland]

I apologize. I don't know what the heck I was thinking while I was writing that, and then defending it too! Looking back I see that I am referencing something completely different. We all make mistakes, and I am big enough to admit mine.

As some side notes: 1. Yes, in fact I have umpired a baseball game or two. 2. I have seen a couple, in person even. 3. Assistant Chief Umpire means that I have to umpire games just like any other ump in the league, assist in training (both of umpires and coaches) deal with any questions that come up in the course of a season (from anyone umpire, coach, league director or parent), and mess around with paperwork to make sure that things work smoothly.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Backward logic again, dash. The guideline of "what would have happened" applies only to the question of where to put the runners. Since the base award in the OP is NOT for obstruction, but for sending the ball into DBT, this guideline is moot.

Why are you so eager to protect the defense from their own violations? Haven't they committed 2 in the OP?

Because I believe (as in OBR), the spirit of the rule is for the umpire to do whatever it takes to negate the act of obstruction. What would have happened absent the OBS? F2 probably throws the B/R out at first. I think a 1-base award is fair enough.

Let me try one last thing: What if you judged that the runner supplied the impetus that caused the ball to enter DBT? Would that change things?

Anyway, thanks for the debate mb & JM. The reason I'm here is guys like youse (note my location).

[gfgartland]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Because I believe (as in OBR), the spirit of the rule is for the umpire to do whatever it takes to negate the act of obstruction. What would have happened absent the OBS? F2 probably throws the B/R out at first. I think a 1-base award is fair enough.

This all depends on how you are viewing the actions from the OP in your mind. What if the B/R stops/ducks/jumps out of the way and F2 & F1 collide/bounce off each other thus causing the ball to come out and go to DBT?

On yet another tangent (sorry, I need to get this out of my head now) what if the B/R gets up quickly and is right at first and appers to be attempting to go to 2nd as the ball rolls slowly to DBT?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Let me try one last thing: What if you judged that the runner supplied the impetus that caused the ball to enter DBT? Would that change things?

Possibly, but that would be a very different case. Two possibilities:

1. unintentional deflection by BR: no change in ruling (still the defense's fault for losing control of the ball).
2. intentional deflection by BR: interference, ball's dead, runners return.

[_Bruno_]

Originally Posted by mbyron

2. intentional deflection by BR: interference, ball's dead, runners return.

BR out ?
"runners return" to TOP-base ?
can the BR be guilty of interference after the time call ?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

BR out ?
"runners return" to TOP-base ?
can the BR be guilty of interference after the time call ?

Yes, BR out on the interference. Runners return to TOI base.

Time is not called after the OBS in USA high school ball, so interference is a possibility.

In OBR, this would be Type A obstruction, which is an immediate dead ball. In that case, obviously there's no possibility of interference (or the ball rolling into DBT either).

[gfgartland]

Please correct me if I am wrong in my thinking, but the way that I am seeing this there are 2 incidents occurring in 1 action, each incident needs to be addressed separately.

Incident 1: F1 obstructs B/R.

Award B/R 1st at end of playing action, unless they acquire it themselves.

Incident 2: Ball entering DBT.

Award B/R 2-bases from time of pitch.