What a mess!

[Buckeye12]

I was officiating a game under FED rules. These kids were young (13-14)so that may help you understand why this situation even happened:

Runner on second, 0 outs. Batter hits a high fly ball to left field. R2 tags. As B1 is rounding first, F7 misses the fly ball and the ball skips to the fence. As B1 rounds 1B, he is obstructed by F3. R2 breaks for 3B and B1 is now on his way to 2B. The runners are now about 25ft apart. I decided that under the circumstances, I would protect B1 to 3B. R2 rounds 3B and B1, catching up with him rounds 3B also. Now both runners are between 3B and home. R2 decides that he can't beat the throw to the plate and stops. B1 passes him, I call the batter out; but due to crowd noise, he doesn't hear me and touches 3B and runs toward second. The throw from the cutoff man goes to 2B to try to retire the runner. R2 now runs home and is safe. Coach tries to argue that B1 should be safe at 3B due to obstruction. I explain that he is protected only until he touches the base I (as the umpire) protect him to. The defensive coach argues that B1 trying to return to 2B is interference since he was already called out. What is the correct ruling in this situation? Is it up to the defense to realize B1 is out for passing R2 even though they didn't hear me call him out? Is this some type of offensive interference? If this is interference, does the run score since B1 was protected to 3B "forcing" R2 to go to home?

I allowed the run to score and simply explained to the defensive coach that I yelled that the batter was out as soon as he passed R2.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Buckeye12

I was officiating a game under FED rules. These kids were young (13-14)so that may help you understand why this situation even happened:

Runner on second, 0 outs. Batter hits a high fly ball to left field. R2 tags. As B1 is rounding first, F7 misses the fly ball and the ball skips to the fence. As B1 rounds 1B, he is obstructed by F3. R2 breaks for 3B and B1 is now on his way to 2B. The runners are now about 25ft apart. I decided that under the circumstances, I would protect B1 to 3B. R2 rounds 3B and B1, catching up with him rounds 3B also. Now both runners are between 3B and home. R2 decides that he can't beat the throw to the plate and stops. B1 passes him, I call the batter out; but due to crowd noise, he doesn't hear me and touches 3B and runs toward second. The throw from the cutoff man goes to 2B to try to retire the runner. R2 now runs home and is safe. Coach tries to argue that B1 should be safe at 3B due to obstruction. I explain that he is protected only until he touches the base I (as the umpire) protect him to. The defensive coach argues that B1 trying to return to 2B is interference since he was already called out. What is the correct ruling in this situation? Is it up to the defense to realize B1 is out for passing R2 even though they didn't hear me call him out? Is this some type of offensive interference? If this is interference, does the run score since B1 was protected to 3B "forcing" R2 to go to home?

Let's break this down.

Runner on second, 0 outs. Batter hits a high fly ball to left field. R2 tags. As B1 is rounding first, F7 misses the fly ball and the ball skips to the fence. As B1 rounds 1B, he is obstructed by F3.

Since this is FED, Obstruction is 1/2 Type "A" meaning B1 gets at least second base and 1/2 Type "B" meaning the ball is delayed dead and we allow play to proceed until it's conclusion. Also, if in our judgement we felt that B1 would get more than one base if he /she wasn't obstructed we can award more than one base.

I decided that under the circumstances, I would protect B1 to 3B.

If in your judgement you felts that B1 would get third base had he not been obstructed then you protect B1 to third base.

R2 rounds 3B and B1, catching up with him rounds 3B also.

At this point the obstruction penalty is no longer valid.

Why! The obstructed runner REACHED the base he /she would have been entitiled to had there been no obstruction at all. Also, under FED the runner advanced at least one base beyond his /her position at the time of the obstruction.

R2 decides that he can't beat the throw to the plate and stops. B1 passes him, I call the batter out; but due to crowd noise, he doesn't hear me and touches 3B and runs toward second. The throw from the cutoff man goes to 2B to try to retire the runner. R2 now runs home and is safe.

This is where it gets tricky.

FED rule 8-4-2g

If a RETIRED runner interferes, and in the judgement of the umpire , another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closes to home shall be called out.

Therefore, if you felt the RETIRED in this case B1 interfered with the play AFTER being retired you could call out R2 as well. It's umpire judgement and from your view B1 did not hear the OUT call and did not interfer so you allow play to stand.

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Buckeye12
I allowed the run to score and simply explained to the defensive coach that I yelled that the batter was out as soon as he passed R2.

Correct, imho.

The obstruction only prevents B1 from being put out by the defense (before the "awarded" base). It doesn't prevent him from being declared out for baserunning errors. Even if he passed R2 between second and third, B1 would be out.

[Bfair]

Pete, you are in left field once again..............

First off, the immediate decision to protect BR to 3B in this play is a poor decision that can be later altered. You need not determine your final protection at the moment of the obstruction. Using common sense you must realize that the obstruction of BR had no bearing on R2. Therefore, if BR runs up the back of R2, then he does so at his own risk and as a result of his own stupidity. If R2 never attempted advance to 3B, then you could and should award 3B to R2 as he is then, after the play is over, forced to advance due to the mandatory one base award of BR to 2B. However, if BR is thrown out attempting to acquire 3B when he cannot legitimately acquire that base (R2 has possession of 3B), then he's on his own.

In your play, BR acquired 2B---his mandatory award base. He could not have acquired 3B if R2 needed to stay on 3B, so I don't know how you could immediately judge that you are awarding 3B to BR---a poor decision. Now R2 eventually passes 3B, and BR passes 3B, so there's no more worry about obstruction penalty. The runners are on their own.

R2 elects to return to 3B, and BR passes him. BR is rightfully declared out, but he either doesn't hear or understand the call, and BR continues his attempted return to 2B. He as well as the defense should know he's been declared out. The defense should not have played upon BR, but when they did, they did so of their own choice.

Merely continuing to run is not an infraction under Fed rule (there is caseplay to support that). In this case, you tell the coach that the defense as well as the runner should have realized that the BR was declared out, and therefore, the run of R2 scores. BR's mere attempt at return to 2B after being declared out is not interference (as Pete indicated that is could be).

This scenerio is certainly different vs. when a lead runner is obstructed.
If R2 had been obstructed and you were going to award him home despite his decision to stop at 3B after the obstruction, you could award 3B to BR (who may have stopped at 2B with R2 on 3B) if you felt BR could have safely acquired 3B absent of the obstruction.


Freix




[Edited by Bfair on Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:05 AM]

[Rog]

applicable NFHS Rules: 8-3-2 & 8-4-2-m

Coaches need to know the rules and need to teach them to their players, so they know how, why, and when to run the bases..... jmo

[Buckeye12]

Thanks to all for the info.

Bfair, I understand your comments, but like I said, that due to the circumstances, I felt like the BR could safely have reached 3B was there no obstruction by F3(actually the BR had already safely reached 3B when the ball was thrown into the infield). I didn't decide on protecting BR to 3B untill he rounded second and I saw that the fielder was just now throwing the ball to his cut-off.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Buckeye12

Thanks to all for the info.

Bfair, I understand your comments, but like I said, that due to the circumstances, I felt like the BR could safely have reached 3B was there no obstruction by F3(actually the BR had already safely reached 3B when the ball was thrown into the infield). I didn't decide on protecting BR to 3B untill he rounded second and I saw that the fielder was just now throwing the ball to his cut-off.

You can't protect him to a base merely because you feel he has enough speed to get there. There are other factors, including whether he can rightfully obtain possession of that base. That did not exist in your example, and therefore, he should not have been protected to 3B---regardless of how fast he was.

What would you have done in your play if BR hadn't passed R2, but was thrown out retreating to 2B while R2 made it safely back to 3B? Would you have awarded 3B to BR since that was your original "protection?" I hope not.

How could BR have reached 3B safely if R2 had possession of the base---obstruction or not? If R2 was already past 3B and then retreated, then you have to adjust your protection at that point depending on the play. If BR hesitates whatsoever as a result of R2 heading back to 3B, I'm very unlikely to continue any protection of BR to 3B---or even back to 2B. His getting caught between 2B and 3B had absolutely nothing to do with the obstruction, but rather it was due to his choice to continue his advance when he had no guarantee that R2 would be advancing beyond 3B. The obstruction had no impact whatsoever on R2 in this play, and it was R2's retreat to 3B that caused BR to get hung out, not the obstruction.

Your decision to protect BR to 3B was far too premature.
Let the play runout and see how much impact the obstruction had on its outcome before making up your mind. One thing we know for sure is that in Fed the BR will get 2B minimum. That doesn't guarantee that R2 will get 3B. What if R2 held 2B on this fly that was dropped, but was then thrown out at 3B by F7 after quickly receiving his miss. Would you award 3B to R2 since you were awarding 2B to BR? I'd certainly hope not.

NOW, let's suppose that this was OBR rule and not Fed.
And suppose BR, making a legitimate attempt to advance to 2B was obstructed by F3 as you indicated, but when BR got to 2B he found that R2 had held 2B thinking the fly would be caught. R2 didn't attempt advance after the drop because he knew F7 had a cannon arm.

Under OBR rule, would you award 2B to BR due to the obstruction?
I wouldn't. IMO, it was pretty stupid of BR to advance to a base that he couldn't have acquired even if the obstruction didn't occur. Since this was Type B obstruction in OBR, I'm not mandated to award a base, and BR is on his own to try to undo his own stupidity. Unfortunately, Fed will protect this act of BR's stupidity by guaranteeing an awarded base of 2B, even if R2 held 2B thinking he couldn't safely advance. So in Fed, as long as R2 would stay on 2B, R2 would then be awarded 3B due to awarding 2B to BR. However, if R2 was to break toward 3B after seeing BR at 2B, he's on his own to make it safely to a base. The obstruction did not impact R2.

---

OTH, let's suppose that R2 was going to attempt to advance to 3B, but tripped over F6 and returned to 2B. The lead runner has now been obstructed. In that case, I'm likely to award 3B to R2 if there was any thought in my mind that he could have safely acquired it, and there's a good chance I might award 2B to BR---even if he didn't try for it. I wouldn't expect BR to try for 2B with R2 retreating to the base, but I also know that he may have tried for it had R2 attempted to gain 3B. I will not provide the benefit of doubt to the offending team.

Consider what would have occurred had the obstruction not occurred, and after applying and mandatory awards, work from there considering what actually occurred. That post obstructive evidence can provide you a lot of information to aid in your judgment.

Slowing down your timing is slowing down your thought process of your decisions. It's not slowing down when you announce a decision that you've already made too quickly......


Freix




[Edited by Bfair on Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:36 PM]

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Bfair

Pete, you are in left field once again..............

First off, the immediate decision to protect BR to 3B in this play is a poor decision that can be later altered. You need not determine your final protection at the moment of the obstruction.

First, please stick to the facts of the thread AS PRESENTED. Whether or not you think the decision was poor is irrelevant. The umpire can award more than one base if that's HIS / HER judgement. Even though it might be a poor decision, the fact is according to the rules, an umpire can protect where he /she judges, so in responding let's stick to what happened.


Merely continuing to run is not an infraction under Fed rule (there is caseplay to support that). In this case, you tell the coach that the defense as well as the runner should have realized that the BR was declared out, and therefore, the run of R2 scores. BR's mere attempt at return to 2B after being declared out is not interference (as Pete indicated that is could be).


You would be correct if the runner does what he /she is supposed to like returning to the dugout when the umpire declares him /her out. Again PLEASE read the thread. The runner was declared OUT, yet went back towards second base where the defense subsequently played on him.

I didn't say based on the information in the THREAD that I would call interference but I did infer that it could be called depending upon umpire judgement. Would I call interference on this play - NO but if an umpire did I do not think that the decision would be a protestable one.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Pete, the official's premature decision to wrongly protect BR to 3B is not irrelevant (as you seem to think). That decision is a basis of one of Buckeye's questions.

Furthermore, you did more than "infer"---you stated---that the return of the BR could be ruled interference and that as a result of that another runner could be called out for this interference of a retired runner. Your answer was wrong; it was in left field. That, Pete, is a misapplication of a rule under Fed interpretation. The BR's action of continuing his play is not and should not be judged as interference by a retired runner---as supported by Fed caseplay. You were leading Buckeye in the wrong direction regarding Fed rule interpretation, and leading him in even a worse direction considering the judgmental aspects of this scenerio he presented.

And Pete, while your answer may have been technically acceptable as an OBR option, I don't think it's one I would ever opt for under OBR. Both teams are responsible for knowing the BR was declared out in this situation. The offensive coach was merely doing his obligatory begging which must be taught in all coaching schoools. Buckeye apparently recognized that fact as evidenced by his final ruling.



Freix

[Roger Greene]

Buckeye,

One point that may have been confused in the above discussion.

From FED 8-3-2 "...If any preceding runner is forced to advance by the awarding of a base or bases to an obstructed runner, the umpire shall award this preceding runner the necessary base or bases...."

The obstruction penalty under Fed rules is a very punitive penalty. It is designed to punish the offending team (the defense) and not just nulify the obstruction (as in Type B OBR or most softball codes.)

Roger Greene

[Bfair]

And while your citation is correct, Roger, it must be kept in proper perspective.

You shouldn't protect an obstructed runner to a base that he could not have obtained absent of the obstuction (except in Fed's case where a one base award is mandated). In Buckeye's example, the BR's ability to get to 3B means nothing if a preceding runner must occupy that base. IOW, since the preceding runner is occupying that base, the obstructed runner could not have acquired it absent of the obstruction.

With that in mind, the rule citation you provide is truly only applicable to where an obstructed runner is provided his mandated one base award, thus causing a preceding runner occupying that awarded base to advance an additional base. I'm open to anyone who can offer a scenerio other than that of awarding the mandated base.....

IMO, this is an excellent example of the difference in understanding the game and its application of the rules vs. merely citing a rule that could masquerade as support of an extremely poor judgment decision.


Just my opinon,

Freix

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Bfair

Steve, here's the original scenario.


Runner on second, 0 outs. Batter hits a high fly ball to left field. R2 tags. As B1 is rounding first, F7 misses the fly ball and the BALL SKIPS TO THE FENCE. As B1 rounds 1B, he is obstructed by F3. R2 breaks for 3B and B1 is now on his way to 2B. The runners are now about 25ft apart. I decided that under the circumstances, I would protect B1 to 3B. R2 rounds 3B and B1, catching up with him rounds 3B also.

You say " IMO, this is an excellent example of the difference in understanding the game and its application of the rules vs. merely citing a rule that could masquerade as support of an extremely poor judgment decision".

Understanding the game - and you talk about me being in left field! Let's see now, we have a ball all the way to the Fence. Don't know the dimensions but the ball is probably some 300 ft. away at this point. In 99 out of 100 instances R2 is going to score EASILY and B1 will at the least be on second base.

So now let's get in the mindset of the runner, since in an earlier thread you said B1 committed a stupid mistake. I don't know about you but when I played and saw a ball roll all the way to the fence I'm assumming my teammate at second base is going to score EASILY , so I continue busting it.

Since the ball is all the way to the FENCE and B1 was OBSTRUCTED rounding first, IMO, it's a good bet that absent R2, B1 would have made third base easily which is what was judged originally.

The only mistake made by B1 on this play is that he passed his teammate and IMO it's more of a mistake on the part of R2 then B1, SINCE r2 with the ball all the way to the fence could have "walked" home.

IMO you need to read the thread more closely and then comment.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Since the ball is all the way to the FENCE and B1 was OBSTRUCTED rounding first, IMO, it's a good bet that absent R2, B1 would have made third base easily which is what was judged originally.
[/B]

You should award bases on your judgment of what bases the runner would have acquired absent of the obstruction---not absent of a preceding runner (as you seem to think). The preceding runner is still part of the game and must be considered within the equation. R2 cannot merely disappear. The BR cannot occupy the same base that a preceding runner occupies. Therefore, Pete, it's not the obstruction of BR that keeps BR from occupying that base, it's the fact that R2 occupies it!!!

By awarding the BR a base you are not required to award him when that base is occupied by his teammate would be awarding him a base he could not have acquired absent of the obstruction.
Can you understand that simple fact, Pete?

Pete, while you are required under Fed rule to award at least one base to an obstructed runner, you must advance any preceding runner that is occupying that base. Other than for reasons of the mandatory award, there is no reason in baseball to advance a preceding runner who could not have advanced on his own during the play.
Please describe for me any situation where you feel that would be justified.........

Originally posted by PeteBooth
The only mistake made by B1 on this play is that he passed his teammate and IMO it's more of a mistake on the part of R2 then B1, SINCE r2 with the ball all the way to the fence could have "walked" home.

IMO you need to read the thread more closely and then comment.

Pete Booth
[/B]

Pete, you apparently STILL don't understand the game of baseball.
We don't weigh which mistake is worse than the other.

I don't care if there was no fence and if the ball rolled 5 miles before F7 retrieved it and threw it toward home plate.........
The BR, who was the obstructed runner, cannot pass a preceding runner nor may he occupy the same base as a preceding runner---obstruction or not. That means it doesn't matter if the BR had enough time that he could have scored, gone home to have a barbecue, taped the reruns of America Bandstand, and returned to the field before F7 got the ball to 3B. If R2 occupies 3B then the BR couldn't legally advance to 3B---regardless of how much time he had. The ball going to the fence, Pete, meant absolutely nothing if the BR is held up by a preceding runner.


Freix

***Added question for you, Pete...........

In the play presented where you felt BR had enough time to get to 3B because the ball "skipped to the fence".......
if R2 stops at 3B and BR continues to 3B and they both occupy the base, who is out when tagged? After calling an out, do you then "award" 3B to BR and advance R2 to home?
What do you do, Pete, and why???

[Edited by Bfair on Jan 25th, 2003 at 12:34 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Understanding the game - and you talk about me being in left field! Let's see now, we have a ball all the way to the Fence. Don't know the dimensions but the ball is probably some 300 ft. away at this point. In 99 out of 100 instances R2 is going to score EASILY and B1 will at the least be on second base.

(Much snipped from above)

Pete --

The *general* philosophy on obstruction is to put everyone where they would have been had there been no obstruction.

So, let's reconstruct the play, absent the obstruction.

B1 hits the ball to the wall, R2 rounds third, decides to return and B1 passes R2, then returns toward second. (I hope that's substantially correct.)

Ruling: B1 is out for passing R2, the return toward second is not interference (I think that's the FED stance on this).

How does obstruction change any of that? There's no specific penalty (e.g., one base minimum award) that need be applied, so the obstruction can be "ignored" (not the best word, I know).

[gsf23]

Pete,

I think you do have to take into consideration the other runner when deciding on what to award the runner on obstruction.

If, like you said, you decide to protect the runner to third base, but while rounding third, R2 twists his ankle and can't continue on to home and goes back to the bag, and B1 has to stop at 2nd. Are you then going to send R2 home cause you thought B1 should have made it to third?

I think what the others are trying to say is that in awarding bases on obstruction, you have to wait and see how the play develops before deciding on an award.

As far as the calling of the situation, I think you did a good job and I would have probably let the run score also. The defense should know that if one runner passes another that they are out, shouldn't have been a play made on him regardless of where he is running.