Is this obstruction?
 

Little League 10-12. Runner on second, two outs, score 4-3 in favor of our opponent, bottom of the sixth. Batter hits a clean single to left and, coaching third I wave the runner home since a weak hitter was coming up next. Unfortunately, the runner I sent home was your typical chunky catcher and pretty slow afoot. The left fielder made a perfect charging pickup and a great throw to the catcher on the fly about 10 feet up the line. The runner realized he was a dead duck and retreated back to third. The catcher threw a little high to the third baseman who was standing about 10 feet in front of third. He jumped up, the throw deflected off his glove back into LF, came down with both feet and a step later our runner collided with him and they both fell to the ground. Seeing the ball go down the line into LF, there was no stopping him now. He got up and "raced" to home. The whiz in LF fired off another perfect throw to the catcher who tagged him out, game over. I protested to the PU that my runner was obstructed and should be awarded home, tie game. The PU said, "There was no "interference" Coach, it was incidental contact. I explained that the word was "obstruction" and that it occurs when a player not in possession of the ball and not in the act of making a play makes contact with the runner. I said he was no longer "making a play" after the ball went past him and that the PU should call obstruction. He said, "Nope, game over". Was that the correct ruling?

My reasoning was that in MLB, you see quite clearly that runners are taught to seek out contact with ANYONE standing around without the ball to instigate obstruction. It usually happens between third and home where I have seen nearly the entire infield in on the play except maybe the second baseman and even an occasional left fielder hones in on the action. The slightest contact such as the brushing of a jersey sleeve will cause the umps to proudly call obstruction and award the run. I thought the rule was the same for Little League.

Reference, please.

While I don't do LL, I beleive this part of the rule to be the same. That doesn't mean your play was OBS.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@SD: Cabrera is awarded home on interference call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

I can't see the video via my iPhone but the description on another web-board makes it kind of sound like the play I described except for the leg-lock by the fielder.

As for the "brushing" reference you asked for, I haven't found it just yet. But within the past two weeks I saw a MLB game where the runner got in a rundown between third and home. Going back to third, the runner diverted his path about a foot toward the infield so as to brush against the pitcher who happened to be there. It was high-fives in the dugout all around for the savvy runner and the announcers described how the runner did exactly as he was taught. I'm pretty sure it was a FOX national game.

St. Louis Cardinals vs. Colorado Rockies - May 28, 2011 - Box Score - MLB - Sporting News

It was the May 28 game St Louis at Rockies. If you have MLB.tv there is not a specific highlight, but you can see it at about 7:20 in the condensed game format. It is pretty much exactly as I described. The amount of contact would not have awakened a sleeping baby.

It is at 2:23 in the full game version with Helton batting in the bottom of the 4th if you want to FOX broadcast version

You don't need contact for obstruction. A player can be obstructed without contact. An example would be the rundown I called last week. The runner was headed back to first. The first baseman was in between the runner and the base without the ball. The runner stopped. At that point I decided the runner had been obstructed, called time and awarded second base.

Contact doesn't mean there is obstruction either. It could be incidental contact. Given the situation you described, I might consider it to be obstruction. But I would have to see it.

So remember that obstruction is a judgment call. One umpire's judgment is not going to be the same as another.

Rita

Rita, it is hard to respect the "judgment" of an umpire who does not know the distinction in using the words "interference" and "obstruction". I painted as clear a word picture that I could. It was a rundown play between third and home and the 3B, having completed his play and not in possession of the ball kept my runner from getting back to third. Watch the St Louis/Colorado play to see how minor and incidental the contact was to constitute a call of obstruction in MLB play. Like I said, I have seem numerous times where the slightest amount of contact is all that is needed to "justify" the call of obstruction at that level of play.

Obstruction - Youth Baseball Knowledge Base

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

I find it rather disingenuous when an umpire like the one in our game concocts a bogus "judgment" angle to hide their ignorance of the rules and the numerous commentaries that aid in their practical application.

1) LL doesn't have the "in the act of fielding" in its rule.

2) There is not instantaneous relief for the runner. The quote you posted refers to a fielder who "continues" to lie on the ground - i..e makes no effort to get out of the way. Whie he'd better do it quickly he just can't go poof.

3) You're just pissed because the umpire didn't call it and your team lost a run and thus the game. If you'd been the winning coach would you be here ranting? I think not.

Its LL. While we all wish the umpire could get terminology right on interference vs. obstruction, the truth is you tend to get what you get at that level. Some guys may be very good, respected officials in the area who just enjoy working that level. Others may be new and inexperienced. Still, others may have been around for a while and had intentions of working their way up, but never did. Others may be working it cause they enjoy the kids, the game, and baseball (especially if they are volunteering in your area).

The world we live in is not perfect. It's youth recreational sports. If you are coming on here to rant and rave about a ruling that ended a game because it affected the outcome, maybe you should consider if you are the best suited candidate for the position you are in and why you are coaching that level in the first place. The kids went and had ice cream either way and had a fun game, I can promise you that.

That's my 2 cents.

Sorry Rich. I pulled the quote straight from a Youth League website. Your comment is in direct contradiction to numerous case commentaries but I guess they are wrong too.

The game in question was over 15 years ago. It didn't matter to me what the outcome of the game was, just the abysmal ignorance of the umpire who had no idea of the nuances of the obstruction rule. EVERY casebook commentary says that once the ball has gone past the fielder he can no longer be considered in the act of fielding and the fielder has VERY LIKELY obstructed the runner. That is EXACTLY what happened in that long ago game but apparently very few umpires let something like - you know - plain English come in the way of their infallible judgment.

Look guys, I am not trying to be insulting to you and there is no reason to be insulting to me. I volunteered for about 8 years to manage or help coach my two sons in youth ball. Winning was a goal - sure - why keep score if it is not. But my primary goal was to teach the kids the fundamentals: how to throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball and know the rules. None of the kids I coached ever went pro, but I hope they can go to a ballgame and appreciate it more because of what I taught them. I hope that when they are called down from the stands to umpire a game for their kids that they will have a better understanding of the rules than the high school kids we got. Passing along the game of baseball to the next generation borders on a sacred duty, or at least it used to be. And it bugged me no end to hear a high school baseball player umpiring our games say non-sense like "the ground can't cause a fumble" when the ball popped out after a diving catch or to get a deer-in-headlights look when I said the word obstruction.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attac..._the_troll.jpg


(Posts Per Day: 26.77)

How about this - in your original scenario, F5 jumped up for the ball and it glances off his glove. F5 comes down and your runner runs into him. Both players were doing what they were supposed to be doing, therefore it's a simple collision (ala Fisk/Arbruster play). If F5 were just standing there doing nothing, that would probably be different.

You are the only one here who saw the play and you've already decided it was obstruction. If anybody suggests it was not obstruction or had to be there to judge it you respond with a bunch of citations to reinforce your opinion of the play.

So what exactly are you looking for here?

No, I don't. Thanks, though.

A couple of points:

1) "A brushing of the sleeve" is not sufficient to (correctly) call OBS. So, either there was other OBS (before or after the "contact"), or the umpires missed it.

2) Even the MLB umps miss them -- that's why is dangerous to take any (well, every) ruling as precedent

3) You don't need to reference "interesting articles I found on the web" to most who post here. Heck, we've probably written some of them (or ones similar to them).

4) It's bad form to reply to yourself, or to have multiple posts in a row.

5) The game was 15 years ago? Lah me. Maybe the umpire kicked it. Maybe he used the wrong term. But, guess what? He's likely learning, too -- especially in a 10-12 year old game.

15 years ago? Get over it.

You seem obsessed with reviewing MLB plays, creating your own (usually wrong) interpretation and then trying to apply that wrong interp into a 15-year old LL game that uses a different rule-set anyway.

Quoting a "youth league" website. Ugh. Really?

We're more than willing to discuss real interpretations of real rules here with people who actually want to learn. We become less interested when non-umpire comes here just to argue and is armed with a boatload of nonsense to support his side.

You can pull a quote straight from a youth league web site all you want but that doesn't make it the riught rule for the game you are in.

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.

Any rule for any sport need interpretation beyond what the rule book actually says. That's why there are comments, approved rulings etc. in the MLB and NCAA books. That's why MLB publishes the MLB Umpitre Manual and the PBUC publishes the PBUC Umpire Manual. That's why LL publishes its case book and Rules Instructiion Manual. That's why FED publishes its case book. The rules go beyond the basic book and you have to know and understand all of that to call things correctly.

The fielder cannot instanly go poof. He has to make every effort to vacate the space ASAP but he cannot go poof. Physical reallity. Deal with it.

15 YEARS AGO?

In 15 years you have spent time researching some MLB video(which clearly showed a leg-lock) that was the cause for obstruction, and haven't taken the time to properly understand the difference between obstruction, malicious contact, interference or just incidental contact. And now you come on here and ask for help.

Your definetly on the wrong Forum Larry. This is not the Psychiatric Forum where you can discuss 15 year hangups.

And in the 15 years since he complains about high school aged kids who ump his games but yet he's never had guts to do it himself. :rolleyes:

A rule question not regarding the specific play. It has been said that LL does not have "in the act of fielding" clause for obstruction. Yet the official rule book cites what I had previously quoted giving the example of an IF who dove and missed the ball and subsequently interfered with the progress of the runner. It says once the ball has gone past him, he is no longer in the act of fielding. So that is basically what I am asking. If LL does not have an act of fielding clause, why was such a specific case example put in its rulebook? I know the fielder can't be expected to "go poof" but the case example seems to address that issue by saying, once the ball has gone past him, not once he has time to get up and get out of the way.

I ask this because I would like to volunteer to umpire youth league next year and I would like to get the call right. I last did it about 15 years ago and it is a very daunting experience indeed. I know a blew a few calls, but I always tried to hustle to get in position, so the coaches cut me some slack.

The shorthand here has gotten you confused.

All rulesets have "in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL" as part of their exceptions to obstruction. Definitions and verbiage are not identical, and when that protection ends is different --- but it's in ALL of them.

The OP referred to a player "in the act of fielding a THROWN ball" - which is COMPLETELY different in all respects.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but this is a "continuation play" :-).
To the degree that LL rules on obstruction differ from other levels, it is mainly to prevent the defensive player from taking a position in the baseline without possession of the ball EVEN if he is in the act of preparing to catch a thrown ball. If anything, the LL modification makes it even more onerous on the defense not to impede the runner, not less.

If contact is made while the IF is in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL, then it is clear that the infraction is offensive interference.

Mike, I understand that. What I did not understand was the comment from another poster who seemed to imply the LL modification that did not have an act of fielding clause made it somehow less likely to have obstruction called on the play I described. Clearly, the LL modification had to do with thrown balls which makes it even MORE imperative for the defense not to impede the runner when they are tossing the ball around and a fielder is not in possession of the ball.

Sorry I was not sure how to edit. The "other poster" was Rich Ives who wrote

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.

15 years ago it did. Perhaps that's the problem here. 15 years ago, OBS was at the same standard as MLB.

I was wondering that myself. Still the LL rulebook has and had the "once the ball has passed the fielder" example. The specific example pertained to a missed ground ball - a batted ball. It would seem the same would apply to a THROWN BALL. Especially when the fielder was 10 feet in front of 3B in a rundown situation and the contact prevented the runner from getting back to the bag.

@kylejt

For historical clarification, I got this from baseball-excellence.com (where I see a lot of familiar faces :-)

Eric,

With regard to the little league rule, the "must have the ball" only applies to the catcher. See LL rule 7.06(b) Note 2.

I believe this rule was added in 2002 because so many catchers were setting up in the basepath before the throw was even made.

Well, jeesh, it would have been awful easy to have said there was a difference between a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball versus a thrown ball. I seriously doubt there is a distinction, at least at the LL level, now or 15 years ago. The rule refers to fielding A BALL that has gone past a fielder (not specifying whether it was a thrown ball or a batted ball) and it does so immediately after a lot of verbiage about a fielder setting up for a THROWN ball. They just happened to give an example of a fielder missing a batted ball, but that necessarily mean that such an example was meant to exclude THROWN balls.

If an umpire has attended a clinic or has a casebook reference that instructs umpires to make a distinction between thrown and batted balls I'd be delighted to have the reference. I'm just trying to get the call right when I volunteer to ump next year and, as it stands, I think I have the LL rulebook on my side.

No. Of course not. I think you would benefit greatly from a clinic, whether you want to umpire or not. You seem to have read many of the rules - but no one has taught you how to put them together correctly. This comes from clinics, and then from experience.

Edited to add: a distinction between a batted ball versus a thrown ball once it has gone past the fielder.... I know there are big distinction before the ball has passed the fielder...

I deleted my comment because I thought it was unnecessarily harsh. That said, you really have two choices.

1. Plug through the book all by your lonesome and be sure of yourself.

2. Plug through the book and take the learned advice from the umpires here on the forum (or other umpires to whom you have access) on the nuances of various rule and how they are supposed to apply to a real game.

:mad:Mike, I will certainly go to a clinic as soon as I can. But the rule in question ONLY says a fielder in the act of fielding "A BALL". From my primitive understanding of the game a fielder can field two types of balls in the field of play: a THROWN ball and a BATTED ball. It would have been very simple for the rulemakers to have added BATTED ball or batted ball and thrown ball if they wanted to make a distinction between the kind of ball that got past the fielder and his impeding the runner VERY LIKELY causing obstruction.

For a thrown ball, the fielder is liable for obstruction if he does not have the ball (FED) or is not "in the act of fielding" the ball (OBR). If a throw gets past a fielder, then he is not in the act of fielding a throw; he is chasing a loose ball, and he is thus liable to be called for obstruction.

I'm not really sure what your question is (despite your many words), but I hope that helps! :)

Well, Rich told me that LL does not have an "in act of fielding" clause and I think that interpretation is clearly wrong as I explained above. The only degree that LL does not have an "in the act of fielding" cause in this situation is to prevent (specifically) the catcher from setting up in the baseline in front of the plate and contend he did not obstruct because he was in the act of fielding a throw. I will go to my grave knowing I am correct on that.

Two of the first things you will learn are:

1) There are 234 (or some such) "known errors" in the OBR (and I'd guess many of them get through to the LL book)*.

2) The book doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says.

* -- Yes, it would be nice if they'd fix them. That's unlikely. The book is written only for MLB, they just let other leagues use them, the problems aren't really problems at that level, so if you want to use the book, deal with it.

And you can do that, or you can listen to umpires who have worked state championship games after 20-30 or more years of workinb baseball games.

Thanks MBYRON. You might huddle up with some of the other umps on here and clarify that to them as well because we have gotten off on several tangents on a rather clearly written rule.

So, what is your call: F5 jumps to catch a throw from F2 in a rundown situation. It deflects off his glove into LF and he lands on his feet 10 feet down the line from the bag where he was originally stationed for the rundown. R3 is running back to the bag - plants right foot, plants left foot then collides with F5 who obviously does not have possession of the ball since it is well on its deflected course way to LF?

LOL, Bob, nice point! One can't help but be reminded of the Pirates of the Caribbean scene:
Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

Bob, I guess one of the things that y'all teach or are taught at the clinics is that "a fielder cannot be expected* to go "'poof'". That has been said in several posts in several threads here and on other sites. I could also have expected the catcher to have made a better throw. I could have expected F5 to have caught the ball (where I am sure R3 would have been called for MC for the collision if the ball was knocked loose). The inferior play of the defense ended up putting the offense at a distinct disadvantage since the R3 was prevented to return to third. Incompetence should rarely be rewarded. If common sense and fair play are taught at these clinics, then I would think it would be strongly suggested to call this obstruction.

*(odd that the well-respected ump at the Texas-ASU game could not have "expected" the B/R to go to 1B after ball four but, hey, they are more like guidelines than rules I guess)

Look.... I'm not trying to tell you that Rich has never ever made a mistake. But PLEASE trust me when I tell you that when what Rich says differs from what you think... you are 99.9% of the time going to be wrong. Please don't go to your grave this early, sir... but you are dead wrong.

Try posting the actual words (and numbers) of the rules you are not understanding.

Mike, I quoted the definition of obstruction and all the stuff about "in the act of fielding" in post 9 above. Rich came back in post 10 with the "poof" ruling. I am sorry if not posting the "guideline" number. I thought you guys would have already known it. It is 7.06.

Mike, the LL modification apparently came about in 2002. I don't have access to an edition at or after that date and e-editions from LL are by subscription only now. In another similar forum (baseball-excellence.com) a post said it was 7.06 (b) Note 2. They didn't C&P the wording so I dont know exactly what it says. I had posted this above as well. I hope that helps and it would be great if someone had access to 7.06 (b) Note 2 so we can see what it says. Apparently it was to prevent the catcher from setting up for a throw up the baseline.

If R3 would have been called for MC if the ball was knocked loose, then he should have been called for MC in your play.

As I envisioned your play, it was likely OBS. It could have been a trainwreck. It *was* HTBT.

On the "act of fielding" issue. In OBR, a fielder can block the base if he's in "the act of fielding" a throw. In LL (I think -- I don't work LL), it used to be that way. I think they've removed that so he now has to have the ball.

That said, that rule generally applies only when a fielder is setting up to block the base. If a throw takes him into the path, then it's (usually) nothing.

About the MC issue....As I recall, the "runner must slide myth" and MC rulings were coming into vogue when that play happened 15 years ago. My point was that the high school age ump was very likely more in tune to making that hot topic call than contemplate the nuances of obstruction. Just about anytime a runner knocked a fielder over when a tag was being applied and especially if the ball came loose, the runner was usually called out and often ejected. In the interest of safety, I never argued such a call. It was sometimes even made in rundown situations with the ball coming over the runners shoulder and the fielder making split second adjustments that caused him to get plowed. But it was better to teach the kids to try to avoid hurting each other.

Could be OBS. From your description, it sounds like OBS, but I would have to see the play to judge it, as it depends on whether the fielder hindered the runner and how they were lined up.

I had a play at 1B this year where R1 got picked off, took off for 2B, and got in a rundown. As F3 threw the ball to F6, he stepped out of the baseline toward right field. R1 turned around and ran toward RF in order to deliberately collide with F3 and beg for an OBS call, when he could have run toward 1B unobstructed. That was not OBS.

MB, so how did you rule on R1? I guess he could have been called out if he deviated more than 3 feet from his established baseline.

As a coach, I never considered protesting a game and I don't recall any specific circumstance where I could have because the heartburn wasn't worth it. Several times, I would call out, "Hey Blue, wrong batter" to prevent the Able-Baker-Charlie stuff that would have eaten up much of our timed game ay to figure out. That said, could a call of no-OBS be protested? Let's say a conversation went like this: "Blue, that's obstruction. My runner gets home." "Nope, Coach, I've got the fielder in the act of fielding, trying to make the catch." "You do agree that the ball was well past him when they collided don't you." "Sure, but the fielder didn't have time to try to get out of the way". "The rules say he can no longer be considered in the act of fielding once the ball is past him". "Nope, it's a judgment call, Coach".

Clearly, to me at least, that is a misapplication of the rules. Is that the kind of explanation from an ump that would be grounds to file a protest? I just don't know how the mechanic works.

Not being a baseball guy, I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure this would be a judgment call.

note: basketball doesn't have protests unless you are in Missouri.

That's not the (entire) rule.

After bumping into F3, R1 tried to get back to the base, which F1 was covering, with the ball. R1 was out.

Although ruling on obstruction is a judgment call, the umpire in your scenario has exhibited that he has misapplied the rule. His words, not his call, would open the call to protest, I think. (My state and no league I work allow protests, so I've never been involved in one, so I'm no expert here.)