Obstruction, missed base

[kopan99]

NFHS; batter hits gap shot to right-center, and gets tangled up with the shortstop who is inadvertently blocking second base, physically preventing the batter-runner from touching the bag. The base umpire immediately signals obstruction. The batter-runner is thrown out at third, but time is called and the base umpire awards him third for the obstruction. Since third base has already been touched, and the ball is dead, the runner cannot return to touch second. The defense may appeal the missed base, correct?

[UmpJM]

kopan99,

The defense may certainly appeal.

No competent umpire would sustain the appeal since the obstruction was the proximate cause of the runner missing the base.

JM

[kopan99]

Are there any case book exceptions in any codes that would exonerate an obstructed runner for missing a base when physically prevented from touching it?

How many of you would or would not uphold the appeal in this scenario?

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by kopan99

Are there any case book exceptions in any codes that would exonerate an obstructed runner for missing a base when physically prevented from touching it?

How many of you would or would not uphold the appeal in this scenario?

I would definitely NOT uphold the appeal. I don't have my NFHS books with me, so I can't dig for a rule / case play right now.

[Ump Rube]

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment...

Is it not the runner's responsibility to touch the bases, especially after the umpire has verbalized the obstruction? He and the umpire both know he is "protected" to the next base he would have achieved. So what harm is there is still requiring the runner to touch the base?

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment...

Is it not the runner's responsibility to touch the bases, especially after the umpire has verbalized the obstruction? He and the umpire both know he is "protected" to the next base he would have achieved. So what harm is there is still requiring the runner to touch the base?

There would be no harm IMO. But, how do you know the runner knows he missed it? It may occur right at the base and he thinks he touched it in all of that action. So, I would not hold him accountable for that if it is not completely obvious he missed it b/c he was stopped about an 2 inches short of the base.

If he is 2 feet from the base and laying on the ground, then the OBS didn't cause him to miss. It caused him to not reach it. But, if he is rounding the base and F4 is in his way and he does a stutter step to try and reach the base, I will not make him touch it since the OBS caused him to miss it.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

So what harm is there is still requiring the runner to touch the base?

What's preventing the third baseman from curling up around the bag, and not letting ANYONE touch it?

Oh yeah, obstruction.

[GA Umpire]

An appeal should not be upheld. The OBS caused the miss. The umpire can impose any penalties which would nullify anything which happened as a result of the OBS. If it is judged that the runner would have touched the base without the OBS(i.e. OBS occurs at the base and the runner passes the base) and the runner has passed the missed base, then no appeal should be upheld as a penalty to nullify the OBS.

So, runner misses and passes the base which the miss is caused by OBS, then the appeal is not upheld. Simply b/c the runner would have touched it without the OBS and he has already passed it.

[DG]

Originally Posted by kopan99

Are there any case book exceptions in any codes that would exonerate an obstructed runner for missing a base when physically prevented from touching it?

Yes, from J/R, "if a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his miss base cannot be upheld".

I could probably find other references but don't see it necessary to look.

[Robert E. Harrison]

I had a play at the plate with the catcher obstructing a runner that missed the plate and a following runner scored. You award the obstructed runner home because there is no way he could touch the plate with the catcher holding him off while the ball is on its way from the outfield. Went through 2 levels of protest and my partner told me and the protesting coach that the runner is required to touch the plate. I told my partner that I did not ask for his opinion and get back to first base.
Sometimes you get good partners and sometimes you don't.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

Went through 2 levels of protest and my partner told me and the protesting coach that the runner is required to touch the plate. I told my partner that I did not ask for his opinion and get back to first base.

If it was a valid protest, then you'd be required to ask your other umpires for input. Plus, just because you have the dish doesn't mean you automatically have the last word. Sometimes the UIC for a game is on the bases, and he DOES have the last word on a disputed ruling.

See, even presidents can learn something new every day.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

kopan99,

The defense may certainly appeal.

No competent umpire would sustain the appeal since the obstruction was the proximate cause of the runner missing the base.

JM

Defensive coach: I'm appealing.

Umpire: No, you're not even attractive.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Defensive coach: I'm appealing.

Umpire: No, you're not even attractive.

JJ is stealing this one from you as we write...........

This is a keeper!!!!!!!!!