What's the call ?

[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.

[Mrumpiresir]

Another thought;

If bases are awarded by the umpire that would negate the obstruction, then go ahead and put the batter runner on second. But that has no effect on R2 so now we have two runners on the same base and the BR is out when tagged.

[tiger49]

You can't award a base to a runner that has not been obstructed with under type B obstruction. Under type A it would be possible, due to the minimum award.

In this case you can't reward the offense for R2 not advancing. R2 ends up screwing over the BR in this case. As he himself nullifies the act of obstruction, by not advancing.

[Durham]

There is no right answer. This is a judgement call. The important thing to know is make your judgement and then know what verbiage you are going to use.

[Wendelstedt School]

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.

[Four-Oh]

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

[Dave Reed]

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.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

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

[Durham]

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?

[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.