Large vs. Smallball Obstruction Difference

[DownTownTonyBrown]

As some of you are probably aware there is a difference in the obstruction penalty/rules for softball and baseball (NFHS)

Softball says 8-4-3 Penalty 3. "... will always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction." And that's the end of it.

Baseball adds 8-3-2 "... the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

For my money, these two phrases in the baseball rules don't agree. A player returning to a base when he is obstructed... the first half of the rules says he gets that base. The second phrase says he gets advanced beyond the base last reached.

You will probably want to review the appropriate casebook plays - as I discuss them below.

The Case Book 8.3.2A gives an example with obstruction upon returning to 3rd after a rundown and finding a subsequent runner already at 3rd. CB says that you would enforce the second phrase - obstructed runner gets advanced to home. Is this because there was another runner at 3rd or is this because obstruction requires the runner to be advanced to the next base (home)?

8.3.2C Says the fielder may obstruct when a play is imminent. Then goes on to say "The benefit of any doubt should be given to the runner." Doubt about what - the immediacy of the play?

8.3.2D says the runner gets advanced independent of what an umpire would likely feel are "the bases they would have reached." Despite the bang-bang force out the runner is awarded the next base because another defender, outside the defensive play involving the ball, commits obstruction. Seems like the obstruction may not have affected the outcome of the play (force out) yet the runner gets advanced rather than out.

8.3.2G Says again that the fielder may obstruct in his attempt to catch a throw - again using the word "imminent." So why doesn't the first baseman block the base with every pick-off attempt? Surely the play is imminent with every attempt. I particulary don't like this casebook play but it is very similar to what occurs with close plays at homeplate. Maybe my dislike of this caseplay is because you routinely have pickoff attempts and only occasionally get a collision with the ball at homeplate.

8.3.2I Says that a fielder "cannot be in the baseline without the ball, if a play is not imminent." Obstruction can be called when there is no contact. Big Deal. Is there something I am missing about this caseplay?

Obviously much is dependent upon the umpire's sense of immediacy. Would anyone care to discuss and clarify the obstruction rule and its enforcement? I realise that laying out a play that accurately displays the sense of immediacy to a reader is difficult. Help us if you can.

I guess the real question is when do you protect the runner and NOT advance him to the next base? Ever? Then why is that statement in the rules?

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown


I guess the real question is when do you protect the runner and NOT advance him to the next base?

If the obstructed runner passes his teammate on the base paths. Absent that, in FED Baseball the obstructed runner ALWAYS gets one base beyond his/her position at the time of the infraction.

Why! Because the defense committed a penalty and as with most penalties there needs to be a consequence.

In Football if a defensive linemen, lines up offside and subsequently the defensive back makes a great play and breaks up a pass play is the penalty ignored even though the offsides had no bearing on the play? Answer No. The penalty is enforced.

Now in OBR Type "B" obstruction you don't have to award the advance to base as we saw in this past years World Series. In Type "A" the runner always gets an advance to base.

Pete Booth

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Thanks Pete,

So why does the FED rule include this statement....

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
[B]Baseball adds 8-3-2 [i]"... the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction.

Is this just so the umpire can potentially award more than one base?

If the answer is yes, then if the runner is advancing, the umpire can award as he sees fit (one minimum or possibly more). If the runner is returning (and a play is not imminent) then the runner only gets one base.

If play is imminent, then either the runner is out when obstructed and tagged, or the runner stays at the base if he is obstructed yet manages to get back safely. Is that correct?

I don't like the ambiguity.

[greymule]

Is this just so the umpire can potentially award more than one base?

Yes. BR had an easy double, maybe a triple, but tripped over F3 on the way to 2B. The ump can give BR 3B, not just the next base.

If the answer is yes, then if the runner is advancing, the umpire can award as he sees fit (one minimum or possibly more).

Yes.

If the runner is returning (and a play is not imminent) then the runner only gets one base.

Right. In Fed. But once again, many Fed umps, thinking OBR, do not award the next base.

If play is imminent, then either the runner is out when obstructed and tagged, or the runner stays at the base if he is obstructed yet manages to get back safely. Is that correct?

Not if he's obstructed, but if you judge the contact to be "incidental" and not obstruction, then yes. However, the benefit of any doubt goes to the runner, and the fielder has to make that play look awfully good. Honestly, I don't think I've seen it more than a couple of times in my life, if that.

I suspect that better wording than "imminent" would be "as the play is happening" or "in the immediacy of the play." If the ball isn't right there—if it's really still on its way—it's obstruction to me. I can see incidental contact occurring as a fielder covers a base and the throw draws the fielder into the path of the runner. If the runner made contact with the fielder just before the ball arrived and the fielder practically simultaneously caught the ball and made the tag, I'd probably call that an out. But it would have to be the throw drawing the fielder into the runner. Simply blocking the base before the runner got there is obstruction.

If the play happens to you, make a snap decision, and then call it and briefly explain it as if you're 100 percent positive, there's no doubt whatsoever in your mind, and there's nothing much to discuss.

Just edited a medical report by a major drug company in which they described the importance of their "eminent" product launch. If those doctors had read our rules books, they'd have known the word they wanted was "imminent."

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

So why does the FED rule include this statement....

Baseball adds 8-3-2 - the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. [/QUOTE]

Is this just so the umpire can potentially award more than one base?


IMO, this is the easiest way to understand the FED obstruction rule.

1. It is 1/2 Type "A" meaning the obstructed runner ALWAYS gets one base beyond his /her position at the time of the obstruction. and

2. 1/2 Type "B" meaning the ball in FED is ALWAYS delayed dead and the umpire may award more than one base but at the very MINIMUM you award one base beyond his /her position at the time of the obstruction.

FED recognized the need for a penalty which OBR doesn't that's why the FED includes the statement "One base beyond the position of the runer at the time of the infraction".
FED also recognizes the fact that depending upon the circumstance, the FED umpire may award more than one base.

IMO OBR's rule is ambiguous because in OBR type "B" the wording is IF ANY which caused a heated debate on another Forum.

Here's a play to CONTRAST OBR from FED which as mentioned caused a heated debate on another Forum.

Play: R1 one out. B1 hits to F6 for the "old fashion" 6-4-3 DP. R1 is obstructed by F3 BEFORE F6 releases the ball. Had R1 not been obstructed he /she would have been out at second by some 60ft. or so.

RULINGS:

OBR - On another Forum we received a ruling from the WUA (World Umpires association in which Rick Roder is a member).

Since R1 was obstructed BEFORE F6 released the ball. it is considered Type "B" obstruction in which case the OBR umpire can award NO base because of the Term IF ANY Therefore, in OBR the DP stands.

FED

In FED, R1 gets second base and the out at first stands.

SUMMARY: In OBR the DP ends the inning and the defense is in essence charged with NO penalty. In FED, the defense is penalized, R1 is awarded second base and the out at first stands.

Therefore, based upon the aforementioned, IMO it is the OBR wording that is ambiguous and not FED. In FED, we KNOW the obstructed runner unless there are some really weird circumstances like R1 passing his teammate, gets a base.

Pete Booth

[Roger Greene]

And, just for background, the Fed softball obstruction rule was a word for word match to the Fed baseball until the 2000 rewright or Rule 8. Fed softball now is much closer to NCAA, ASA, and Pony softball.

Roger Greene

[greymule]

Pete: The DP you mention, where obstruction is ignored, is very similar to a play I posted last year. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, 2 out. Charles hits a smash that F5 backhands on a hop, right next to 3B. Just before F5 steps on the bag for the third out, Abel trips over F6. Is the OBR ruling that Abel is out, or is this still in dispute?

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by greymule

Pete: The DP you mention, where obstruction is ignored, is very similar to a play I posted last year. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, 2 out. Charles hits a smash that F5 backhands on a hop, right next to 3B. Just before F5 steps on the bag for the third out, Abel trips over F6. Is the OBR ruling that Abel is out, or is this still in dispute?

The key question in OBR Type "B" at least the way I NOW understand it based on recent rulings from the WUA is this.

Absent the obstruction which base IF ANY would the runner be entitled to which is judgement on the part of the umpire.

So in your play if Abel would have been out by a mile if he wasn't obstructed by F6 allow the play to stand.

IMO the difficulty in understanding OBR is that on a similar scenario if a play was being made on the runner ie; Type "A" the runner gets a base irregardless if he /she would have been out by a mile or not.

Let's take my example above except this time F6 ALREADY releases the ball and a play is being made on R1. Now we have Type "A" and R1 is awarded second base.

IMO, even with the WUA ruling, I think OBR needs to clean-up their obstruction rule as it is still ambiguous depending on the situation.

FED cleared it up. The defense commits an infraction and they are penalized.

Pete Booth

[greymule]

That's not easy to follow, Pete. What if, in your play, F6 had been close to 2B, and the OBR occurred while F6 was running to 2B? And in my play, wasn't F5 "playing" on Abel when he began to step on 3B?

It seems strange to define type A by whether or not a throw has been released. There are so many ways a fielder can play on a runner without throwing. Maybe I'm making this too complicated.