What's the call ?

[umpjong]

Technically I'm with JJ on this but from a different path.
The play would continue and BR would probably be called out to end play. Then umpire that has the obstruction would step in and award BR 2nd because of the obstruction, and R2 third because he is forced to third because of the award to BR.

[bob jenkins]

fwiw, I agree with JJ and jong

[Forest Ump]

Gentlemen, I've got a different take on this. The obstruction is negated because the BR made it to 2nd base safely. R2's action are completely independent of the obstruction. I don't have obstruction anymore. I now have two runners on a base that is legally occupied by bonehead R2. BR is out when tagged.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

The obstruction is negated because the BR made it to 2nd base safely. ... I now have two runners on a base that is legally occupied by bonehead R2.

Contradict yourself much? If he's in jeopardy of being out when tagged on the base, then he's not safely on 2B.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Contradict yourself much? If he's in jeopardy of being out when tagged on the base, then he's not safely on 2B.

No contradiction here, Yawetag. Two seperate and independent plays. BR makes it to 2B safely. No play was made on him. The umpire did not rule out or safe on his arrival at the base. He achieved his advance base regardless of whether he was protected there or not. He was never in jepordy. The obstruction is negated because of that. He's now standing on an occupied base and then tagged. Where is the contradiction? Is he not responsible for knowing that 2nd base is occupied before preceeding there?

[umpjong]

Obstruction is never "negated". An umpire will always acknowledge the obstruction even if the runner attains the base entitled to or one beyond. Since the BR clearly showed that he could reach 2nd base without being obstructed, he is at least entitled to that base and any runner forced to advance, because of the penalty of obstruction, will do so.

[Mrumpiresir]

I cannot see awarding R2 3rd because of his boneheaded baserunning. I have the BR out when tagged on second base.

I know it is a different play but the principle is the sane.

When two runners are between first and second and the ball is thrown out of play, we award the lead runner two bases but the trail runner would only get one.

By what rule could you advance R2 to third? What were the base coaches doing? Just bad baserunning.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Obstruction is never "negated". An umpire will always acknowledge the obstruction even if the runner attains the base entitled to or one beyond. Since the BR clearly showed that he could reach 2nd base without being obstructed, he is at least entitled to that base and any runner forced to advance, because of the penalty of obstruction, will do so.

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.