Following type B obstruction, the umpire is to "impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

If B/R had not been obstructed, he would have reached only first base, because R2 was occupying 2nd.

Nullifying the act of obstruction will leave B/R at first.

B/R is out.

PRECISELY why it's a "HTBT" situation. Was the BR running hard around first when he was obstructed by the first baseman? Did he see the ball down and decide he could make it to second? How do YOU know he would have only reached first base? Did the runner on second hold up thinking the ball was caught? Did the umpire feel that regardless of what that runner on second was doing that the batter runner would have made second base?
Questions, questions, questions....

No, I'm not necessarily wrong,,,but neither is anyone else ;)

JJ

Exactly. Just know what you are gonna do and how you are gonna sell it and explain it. It helps to use a rulebook phrase or two in your explaination if you can. Any way you cut it, someone is coming to see you on this play. Which end of the stick are you gonna grab and how will you defend it?

JJ,
None of the questions you ask have relevance here, and there is nothing HTBT about it. The crux is that R2 did not advance, and B/R could not have reached second safely with or without obstruction, because 2nd was occupied.

It's a common occurence: A hitter is held to a single because the runner on second fears the ball will be caught.

The penalty for type B obstruction is not awarding bases; instead it is whatever penalty would nullify the act of obstruction. In the OP, if there had been no obstruction, B/R would have to stop at first--because R2 did not advance. So the umpire nullifies the act of obstruction by leaving him at first.

Well Said. +1

well.. "time, I have OBS, you pointing to the BR, 2nd base, then to 2nd you 3rd base" cant have to guys on the same base..since you awarded him 2nd, it forces R2 to 3rd..

also just cause there is OBS dont mean the BR will get 2nd..it is judgment as to what base he would have obtained.

Yeah, I've thought it through and read what others have said as well...I would've got it right on the field...but probably screwed up how I would've explained it to the coach.

R2 isn't getting a free base though. No matter what anybody says.

Use whatever term you would like, negated, disregarded, or nullified. Now that I think about it, nullified is probably the best term. This was discussed on the field at the JEA DC last fall. They actually discussed the best term to use when obstruction or interference is nullified. BTW. I never said in any of my post that the obstruction was not to be acknowledged. It was acknowledged in the OP. I'm dealing with the aftermath in my post.

+1 to Reed also. The best I have read on the three + forums that are running this question.

The B/R would not have to stop at first. He would be foolish to continue, but he would not be required to stop.

And if I am not mistaken, nullifying the act can be left to the interperatation of the umpire. So it would be left to each umpires judgement as to how far they were going to protect the obstructed runner.

Personally, I would get the out on the B/R 9 out of 10 times. I would explain to the head coach that I only protected the B/R back into 1st because 2nd was occupied. But on the occasion where maybe this F3 has a history of obstructing runners or this obstruction was intentional, then as part of game management I would protect him into 2nd and award him 2nd when he reached it and thus award R2 3rd. I would explain to the coach that in my judgement the B/R could safely attain 2nd and due to my protection into 2nd, R2 is forced to 3rd. He would complain and I would agree that it was a ****ty situation and that I am sorry that the obstruction occured, but that it can not be ignored. Either way it would be a judgement that I would have to render and luckily the rule is written in a way that allows me to manage the situation.

Some times there is no right or wrong answer, and as someone much smater than me has stated, "You just have to umpire!"

JMO, but I don't think that changing the award is a good game management technique.

Obstruction Query
 

As some have referenced, the umpire should do whatever in his mind would nullify the act of obstruction. In the scenario put forth, though it is up to the judgment of the umpire, we would expect that the umpire would call out the BR for being the following runner when both are tagged with two runners on base. You award all runners where they would have reached. It seems apparent that had the obstruction not occurred, the BR would have been standing on second base, along with R2, the same as the situation played out. This is only when no play is being made on the obstructed runner.
This is not to say, however, that runners cannot be forced beyond their award. For instance, if the BR ended up getting in a rundown between first and second when he was obstructed, the ball would be dead immediately. The rulebook says that you can put runners wherever they would have gone had the obstruction not occurred, but the obstructed runner gets at least one base beyond their position in this situation. This would put the BR at second base. That award would force R2 to third, even though he would not have gotten there had the obstruction not occurred. This, though, is only when a play is being made on the obstructed runner. I hope that this offers another perspective on the play that was presented.

I have the B/R out on this play.

According to my copy of J/R (9th ed.), this play is covered in the discussion of considering action after OBS occurs.

The point they make is that the B/R "is required to realize that R2 has not advanced. The obstruction does not give him license to ignore the actions of his teammate while advancing." (p. 127, 2(c))

Since R2 hasn't advanced, B/R can't acquire it safely, and so can't be protected to that base. It would have been possible, I suppose, to protect B/R's return to first, but that return was not attempted. B/R has advanced past that point and no longer has protection.

------
Andrew
#40

OK, then I'm wrong. If it was in JR all along, why the big debate? Feel better?

JJ

J/R isn't God. There have been, and currently are, mistakes.

That said, I'd take his interpretation over this debate. :)

If R2 heads for 3rd, and changing his mind, returns to 2nd.
BR heads for 2nd after seeing R2 running for 3rd. BR looks to RF to locate ball, cruises into 2nd to find R2 there.

Would you have R2 out?