interference/obstruction?

[acyrv]

Runner on 1st, no outs. ball hit to shortstop. as runner on first runs toward second, he collides with the 1st basemen trying to cover 1st base. is the right call: 1.runner out for interference. or 2. is the fielder guilty of obstruction for being in the baseline without the ball. this is a cal ripken game.

[Edited by acyrv on Jul 7th, 2002 at 02:45 PM]

[senior]

The runner is blameless in this situation. The first baseman should not be in between first and second (the runner's path) when attempting to cover first on the tail end of a double play. I'm assuming an attempt to force the runner at second would be the normal play in this situation.

If the first baseman were holding the runner at first, he'd already be at the bag. If not, he'd be either in front, or behind, the baseline, and angling back to first in his attempt to cover the bag.

I'd have obstruction on the defense on the play you describe.

Senior

[Bfair]

Sorry-------I had technical problem with this post
and it couldn't be deleted..........

reposted below.



Freix



[Edited by Bfair on Jul 8th, 2002 at 10:38 AM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by acyrv
Runner on 1st, no outs. ball hit to shortstop. as runner on first runs toward second, he collides with the 1st basemen trying to cover 1st base. is the right call: 1.runner out for interference. or 2. is the fielder guilty of obstruction for being in the baseline without the ball. this is a cal ripken game.

[Edited by acyrv on Jul 7th, 2002 at 02:45 PM]

This would be a Type B obstruction where the obstructed runner is not being played upon at the time of the obstruction. The penalty is for the umpire to impose a penalty that, in his judgment, will nullify the act of obstruction. There is no mandatory base award to R1 with Type B obstruction---it remains umpire judgment. Action continues as it is treated as a delayed dead ball situation.

If R1 is toast at 2B, I have obstruction with no penalty. The obstructive act had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the play. Still, if there is the slightest possibility that R1 may have safely made it to 2B if it were not for the obstruction, then I protect him there.

Post obstructive evidence may be used. That is, if after the obstruction F6 fields it cleanly and tosses flawlessly to F4, then it's unlikely the act impacted play. However, suppose F6 bobbled the ball or made a poor throw to F4. Those actions could be taken into consideration as to whether or not R1 could have made it safely to 2B. You may also take into consideration if R1 is a jackrabbit vs. a 250 pound catcher wearing a knee brace. All benefit of doubt should favor R1, but if you are certain R1 would have been out despite the obstruction, there is no reason you must award 2B to him.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Jerry]

Good call, Steve. As you know, not all contact between players is either Obstruction or Interference. Your delayed dead ball call is right on. By definition, obstruction "impedes the progress of any runner." Given the likelihood that R1 would (more than likely) have been out on the force at 2nd anyhow, there was no "progress" that was impeded.

The 1st and 3rd base coaches, of course, would see it entirely differently.

Jerry

[greymule]

I posted a similar play a few months ago, and the consensus on this site was different. I had runners on 1B and 2B, two out. Smash on a hop to F5, who steps on 3B just after runner on 2B trips over F6, 70 feet from 3B. In the actual game situation, I let the out stand and nobody squawked too much, but the feeling here was that the runner should have been awarded 3B, regardless of how obviously out he would have been (as long as the runner did not intentionally . . . etc.).

Freix, I'm not sure that in the play "acyrv" posted, "the obstructed runner is not being played upon at the time of the obstruction." F6 would probably have been throwing to 2B for the force, wouldn't he? I think of type B obstruction as something like B1 gets base hit, rounds first with no intent to go to 2B, and trips over F3 as F6 is receiving the ball at 2B.

[Bfair]

Simply summarized, a play is the act of a fielder attempting to retire a runner. Fielding a ground ball is not a play, otherwise, fielding a ground ball would be a first play by an infielder, and the throw would be the 2nd play. We all know that is not the case.

Unless this F3 is very well removed from R1, it's highly unlikely the obstruction occurred while a play is being made on R1 (a throw to retire him). The runner, being forced, would be breaking immediately on the ground ball, and would likely be well beyond F3 before any throw attempt occurs.

While Childress has attempted to liken the situation to a BR being obstructed before reaching first, that's not what the rule currently reads. I'll not disagree that Carl's analogy could be logical, but unfortunately it's not the current rule. That makes it speculation at this time. Hopefully Childress will obtain a ruling on this type play where a runner is dead meat, but some obstructive act occurs which might involve awarding a base that in all likelihood he would not have obtained if the obstruction had not occurred.

A member of a another forum had gone to a pro camp this past spring and asked his instructors regarding this type play. He reported back that all his instructors advised they would consider it a Type B obstruction and not award a base the runner would not have obtained if the obstruction did not occur. That fact, however, is purely hearsay information.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[greymule]

Along with the post months ago, I included another play: B1 hits roller 8 or 10 feet up the first base line, but both he and F2 for some reason think it's foul. B1 stands in the box while F2 walks up the line to retrieve the ball. F1, however, decides that maybe the ball is fair (good assumption, since I didn't say foul and was pointing fair throughout). Offensive coach yells, "Run!" So B1 finally runs as F1 picks up the ball. B1 collides with F2, who is in the baseline, while F1 throws for the easy out at 1B.

Again, I let the out stand and didn't get much argument, but the consensus on this site was that F2 had obstructed B1, and that B1 should be awarded 1B. Quite a number of comments about how it didn't matter how "out" B1 was, how B1's late start should not be taken into account, how the rule was clear, etc.

I see a difference between obstruction during an obvious play on a runner (Type A) and obstruction when there's no play (Type B). These situations seem to fall into a grey area.