obstruction

[newump]

Fed rules.

R2 takes a large secondary lead. F2 attempts to thrown behind him to pick him off. F6 covers 2nd. R2 dives back into 2nd and his access to the base is completely blocked by F6 - about 3 feet short of the bag. F6 does NOT have the ball when R2 dives into his legs. F6 then catches the throw and tags R2. Clearly appears to be obstruction.

Is R2 awarded 3rd? i know Fed used to be a minimum one base award on obstruction - is this still true? BRD 2009 #34 indicates that the obstruction is ignored if the runner was not attempting to advance.

thanks,

[dash_riprock]

1 base minimum award in FED.

[UmpJM]

newump,

Yes, under FED rules an obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of "one base beyond" his position at the time he is obstructed.

In your sitch, the R2 would be awarded 3B, despite the fact that he was obstructed while returning to 2B.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by newump

BRD 2009 #34 indicates that the obstruction is ignored if the runner was not attempting to advance.

That typically happens when BR rounds 1b and bumps into F3, or R1 or R2 rounds 2b and bumps into F6, but neither has any intention of advancing and a play is not being made. In the situation you posted the runner is awarded the next base.

[newump]

thanks. i awarded the runner 3rd in my situation, but started to 2nd guess myself after reading BRD

[bobbybanaduck]

it is type b obstruction that is ignored (in OBR) if he isn't trying to advance. this situation is type a obstruction and would result in the award of at least one base in all codes.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

it is type b obstruction that is ignored (in OBR) if he isn't trying to advance. this situation is type a obstruction and would result in the award of at least one base in all codes.

Yep, otherwise teams would be doing this all the time knowing there would not be a penalty.

JJ

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yep, otherwise teams would be doing this all the time knowing there would not be a penalty.

JJ

You might be on to something.....

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

newump,

Yes, under FED rules an obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of "one base beyond" his position at the time he is obstructed.

In your sitch, the R2 would be awarded 3B, despite the fact that he was obstructed while returning to 2B.

JM

How do you work around the first part of that rule: 8.3.1?

When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, 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. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

In the OP, R2 is attempting to return to 2nd (not going to 3rd) and is put out due to an OB. Since he's not attempting to run to 3rd, he would be awarded 2nd since that's the base he's attempting to reach/return to. Thus the defense is penalized by not getting the out.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mroyal

How do you work around the first part of that rule: 8.3.1?

When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, 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. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

In the OP, R2 is attempting to return to 2nd (not going to 3rd) and is put out due to an OB. Since he's not attempting to run to 3rd, he would be awarded 2nd since that's the base he's attempting to reach/return to. Thus the defense is penalized by not getting the out.

mroyal,

That is just flat out wrong. In the OP, the obstructed R2 is properly awarded 3B.

I "get around" the part of the rule you underlined by reading the entire rule. Especially the part that says:

...The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. ...

I also read the case plays that have a runner obstructed while "returning" to a base who is awarded an advance base. (e.g. 8.3.2A, 8.3.2B(b) ).

The rule is certainly poorly worded, but in FED an obstructed runner is always awarded "one base beyond".

JM

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mroyal

How do you work around the first part of that rule: 8.3.1?

When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, 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. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

In the OP, R2 is attempting to return to 2nd (not going to 3rd) and is put out due to an OB. Since he's not attempting to run to 3rd, he would be awarded 2nd since that's the base he's attempting to reach/return to. Thus the defense is penalized by not getting the out.

Keep reading.............

The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Keep reading.............

The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

"each other runner affected ..." would be those forced by virtue of the award. As an example, R2 & R3, same play as the OP. R2 is awarded 3B & R3 is awarded HP (He is the 'affected runner') as he is forced to advance.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

"each other runner affected ..." would be those forced by virtue of the award. As an example, R2 & R3, same play as the OP. R2 is awarded 3B & R3 is awarded HP (He is the 'affected runner') as he is forced to advance.

Not sure what this has to do with my post... My post deals with the obstructed runner as does UmpJM (nee CoachJM), who posted basically the same thing as I just above mine.......

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mroyal,

That is just flat out wrong. In the OP, the obstructed R2 is properly awarded 3B.

I "get around" the part of the rule you underlined by reading the entire rule. Especially the part that says:



I also read the case plays that have a runner obstructed while "returning" to a base who is awarded an advance base. (e.g. 8.3.2A, 8.3.2B(b) ).

The rule is certainly poorly worded, but in FED an obstructed runner is always awarded "one base beyond".

JM

8.3.2b - obstruction due to a fake tag. No play being made on the runner, just deception by the defense. I would give the base award.
8.3.2a - obstruction happens during rundown. Play is being made on an advancing runner. I would give the base award.

But the following case play is more inline with the OP


*8.3.2 SITUATION G:

F1 attempts to pick off R1 at first base. As F3 is about to receive the throw, he drops his knee and (a) blocks the entire base prior to possessing the ball or (b) blocks part of the base prior to possessing the ball or (c) blocks the entire base while being in possession of the ball. RULING: Obstruction in (a); legal in (b) and (c).

Though the ruling is obstruction, there is no ruling on an awarded base in the case play. I would interpret that in (a) the runner is returning to 1st and is awarded that base as per rule 8-3-2:

When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, 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.

In this OP, the runner would have returned to 2nd (he's not advancing to 3rd) had there been no obstruction. Granted the wording in this particluar rule seems to contradict itself. But I see the later wording in this same ruling stating "Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire judgement." In this OP, in my judgement, he's not going to 3rd. He's returning to 2nd. Due to the obstruction, the defense looses the out and R2 gets 2nd.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I would interpret that in (a) the runner is returning to 1st and is awarded that base as per rule 8.3.2:

Do you mean rule 8-3-2? 8.3.2 is a casebook play.