What's the call ?

[Dave Reed]

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.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

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

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

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.

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!"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Durham

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Durham

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 have multiple problems here. First, given that the rules are the rules ... if we see the same exact situation 10 times, it should have the same ruling 10 times out of 10. Second - you're really telling us that you would rule differently in identical situations based solely on your prior knowledge of the habits of the fielder?

Sorry to be frank and blunt ... but that's just awful.