What's the call ?
 

OBR. 0 out. R2. The batter hits a looping drive to short right field. R2 holds up and remains at 2nd as the ball drops safely. The BR rounds 1st and collides with F3. BR continues to run and reaches 2nd safely. Both runners are now standing at 2nd . The defensive player tags both runners. What should the umpire's call be?

"TIME! R2, you go to 3B, and BR, you stay on 2B."

Next question?

JJ

I disagree.

I'll try:

I've got OBS (type b), protecting R1 to 2B, however, this is type 2 OBS with 2B still occupied by R2, so I'm also going to call B/R out on the play.

Yep, it's type 2 obstruction, but I'm protecting that BR into 2B, and my award for him will force R2 to advance to 3B. Since the BR was still running after he collided with F3 as opposed to stopping at 1B, while I wouldn't AUTOMATICALLY award him 2B I will in this case. He must have thought he could make it to 2B so he kept running. I'm giving HIM the benefit of the doubt while at the same time letting F3 know to stay out of the runner's path.

Of course, this is definitely a HTBT situation, but based on the OP this is what I would do. If another umpire chooses to do something different, that's his call.

JJ

14 days till first pitch.

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.

fwiw, I agree with JJ and jong

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Unless forced, the base belongs to the lead runner. So, I don't see anyway to have R2 out in this play (given that he's not tagged until he's back at second). Either BR is out, or BR is at second and R2 is advanced to third.

Nobody's out until somebody's tagged. If they're both on the base and both are tagged, then BR is out, since the base belongs to R2 until he's forced to advance (as in a force play -- BR's presence by itself does not force R2 to advance).

Mechanics?
 

So, in two man mechanics, do we see this?

During the play
Plate Umpire: Indicates obstruction, does not call time.

On the tag of B/R:
Field Umpire: Out signal

Seeing action has stopped:
Plate Umpire: Time! Obstruction at first base, you, second base!

Field Umpire: On the tag, you're out!

Or should the Plate Umpire make just eat the earlier acknowledgement of obstruction?

Too much went on in front of too many witnesses for BU to ignore his call.

Assuming that all this occured in a day game, and guessing that at least one coach is going to want an explanation:

After play has ended BU and PU get together and discuss what they have and get on the same page. As they break up they announce what they have: obstruction, batter/runner protected to the touch of second, batter/runner out on the tag - two runners on same base - and get ready to eject somebody.

I thought we were only protecting him to 1B? Maybe we weren't unanimous on that.

Protection
 

Well, we do agree that B/R is liable to be tagged out at 2B.

I may have split the responsibilities too fine. In a normal delayed obstruction, Plate Umpire can place the obstructed B/R after calling time. In this case, he may not know why R2 is still on 2B, but he should be able to see him there.

But, taking MrUmpire's suggestion, perhaps the umpires should huddle before "placing the runners." (Of course, after that huddle, B/R will still be called out.)

I just hate to have a huddle after calling obstruction but before resolving the call. But, given this 3rd world play, perhaps that is unavoidable. As is the ensuing discussion with the offensive manager.

Does it matter? He's out at second.

You're right, it doesn't...unless there's a protest, you might want to explain yourself correctly. But I agree with you. When I initially replied on this, I protected him to 2B, then called him out. But after talking about it w/ others, I changed my thought to only protect to 1B...the benefits of being able to change your mind on a forum, not a field.

Huddles aren't always bad. It's a brave new world out there.

Thanks
 

OK. Huddling is a basic Little League mechanic that I have mastered. ;) The question is when to use it.

I use it to run out the clock when we're leading with less than 2 minutes to play...

Sorry wrong forum :eek::D:D:D

This is not the Plate umpires call...and should not call OBS..

Unless you're protecting him to second - then the runner on second is "forced" to go to third. And we start this discussion all over again :D

JJ

I'm a little late to this party, but, as the OP is presented, I've got the BR out at 2B when both he and the R2 are tagged while they are both standing on 2B.

The remedy for "Type B" obstruction in OBR is to "nullify the act of obstruction".

So, what would have (likely) happened if the BR had NOT been obstructed?

He would have reached 2B a couple of steps sooner and been tagged while touching a base that offered him no protection (since it was legally occupied by the R2).

Since the obstruction had no bearing on the R2 remaining on 2B, the BR is still out, despite the obstruction.

JM

O.P. -

BR was obstructed AFTER obtaining 1st base. The minimum penalty is BR placed one base beyond, putting him at 2nd. R2 goes to 3rd.

Punish the offender - the defense. By calling BR out, where's the penalty?

On a philosophical note: Dave Yeast, former NCAA Coordinator, told an NCAA meeting in '04 to not have an "opinion" of how far you will protect the obstructed runner. Let the play give you the information and base your judgement on the results of the play. His contention was/is that umpires have snap opinions as to how far the runner should advance before the play ends.

Example:
The fastest batter-runner in the state hits a shot to right field, is obstructed after touching first, and is tagged out at 3rd by a whisker. Call?

Majority of umpires respond with: "Out. He shouldn't have gone past 2nd."

What if, on this play the fastest batter-runner is safe at 3rd. Would you call time, and say to the coach - "Coach, your runner is safe at third, but in my opinion he shouldn't have gone past second, so I'm going to put him back at 2nd base." I would hope no one ever says such a thing.

In the former example, the umpire created an opinion and determined what the result of the "should" be without waiting for the result of the play.

Example:
If the slowest batter in the state hits the same shot to right field, is again obstructed after 1st base, and is tagged out halfway between 2nd and 3rd.
Call?
I have an out. The obstruction (an ordinary bump) did not cause such a hinderance as to be out by 40 feet.

Point is to let the play happen, and then render a decision. We're told, for timing's sake, to wait and take our time, but with instances of obstruction, we are far to quick to judge.

Nope. OBR, type B obstruction. No minimum award.

I hope not, either. Runners are allowed to advance past the awarded base, but they're in jeopardy of being out if they do.

As stated elsewhere, the play on the BR was after he touched the base to which the umpire protected him. Nothing else is required by the umpire to nullify the obstruction.

The first offender was the D when they obstructed the runner. The umpire saw it, called it and protected the runner to the base he would have acquired had there been no offending obstruction.

The next offender was the O when they tried to put two runners on the same base to which only one was entitled. The umpire saw it, called it and retired the trailing runner, the one not entitled to the base.

It must have been one Hell of a meeting back in '04 with Dave waxing philosophic. But, perhaps the point of his philosophy was that other things can happen after the obstruction, but before the end of continuous action, that may change the base/s to which the umpire may make awards or call outs. Others have referred to it as "post-obstruction evidence," I wasn't there at that particular meeting, but I don't think that philosophy is relevant to the OP.

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.

Absolutely... why wouldn't he be?