Obstruction/Interference/Nothing???Discuss

[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.

[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.

[_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).

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

ozzy,

Under OBR, a BR obstructed before reaching 1B is ALWAYS "Type A", regardless of whether a play is being made on him.

Under OBR, that's an immediate dead ball (so the ball going out of play "never happened"), aand the BR gets 1B.

Under FED, you keep the ball in play until it enters DBT. Then you kill it and award runners 2 bases. It was the DEFENSE'S actions that were the root cause of the ball going out of play. No way I'm "bailing them out" by making the "lesser" of the two awards resulting from the action of the play.

JM

This is what JJ and I agreed on. Also NCAA same as Fed on this one..... (actually we [JJ and I] did not speak of the Pro ruling, but I would agree with you on that also.)