Missed base caused by OBS

[Rich Ives]

Read the rule again - you can do whatever you want to do to nullify the effect of the obstruction.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Read the rule again - you can do whatever you want to do to nullify the effect of the obstruction.

So if a kid falls and injures himself while being obstructed, I can nullify that too? Great!

This is not a God rule: there are more basic principles in the rules, including running the bases legally and touching each in order.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So if a kid falls and injures himself while being obstructed, I can nullify that too? Great!

This is not a God rule: there are more basic principles in the rules, including running the bases legally and touching each in order.

True, but I think you're missing the point here that it was the obstruction that caused the missed base. If a runner simply misses a base (not due to the obstruction), then the miss is definitely appealable. However, we are to impose what we need to in order to put things the way they would have been had there been no obstruction. In this case, if there was no obstruction, it is safe to assume there would also not have been a missed base. Yes, this is not a God rule --- but to not waive the missed base would be to fail to put things they way they would have been absent the obstruction.

[kylejt]

Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?

No, because the official and accepted interpretation (since 2002) states otherwise. Our(my) point is and will always be , what would it have takem to add this excetion to 7.02. That rule has been around for a hell of a lot longer then the interp.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?

Everyone I know does, in fact, make exactly that announcement. We have actually had arguments along the "tipping off the offense" vein as we have some umpires that will do that every time, and others that won't say it in the normal situations, but DO say it when someone missed a base.

[kylejt]

On type b obstruction, when it's called as it happens, there's absolutely no reason to call time, and make any sort of announcement if the runner got to where he would have without be obstructed.

Honestly guys, set the book down for minute, and let rule with the book.

If a runner bumps a first baseman rounding first on a single, and you casually point the OBS, and the runner just walks back to first, you're not calling TIME! and pointlessly yelling THAT'S OBSTRUCTION! I would hope not, at least.

That goes the same for any other, non award type b OBS. There's no need for it. If he gets bumped at first, but makes second on a clear double, you don't kill it. Again, no need.

That said, I'm talking about pure OBR based rules. Perhaps some organizations DO require you to kill the play, and make a worthless announcement. But none that I'm aware of do.

So, now I'm curious. What organization is requiring this?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I agree, both JR and BRD make weak arguments in support of this ruling. But they are official.

For whom?

Last time I looked, they were both reference books used by umpires to help understand the rules, and official for neither NFHS, NCAA nor OBR.

Did something change since I last looked?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

For whom?

Last time I looked, they were both reference books used by umpires to help understand the rules, and official for neither NFHS, NCAA nor OBR.

Did something change since I last looked?

If it makes you happy we will call them unofficial accepted and documented established precedence, accepted by most of the Baseball officiating world except you. If not then anything goes for this case. Make it up and it will be as per the following:

"OBR
7.06 (b)
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

I think ignoring the missed base would constitute nullifying the act of obstruction."

Or how about my interpretation because, I think ignoring the missed base not only nullifies OBS but also nulifies 7.02 also. And because the Official Rules don't clearly state that, who is to say I am any more right than Big Tex.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If it makes you happy we will call them unofficial accepted and documented established precedence, accepted by most of the Baseball officiating world except you. If not then anything goes for this case. Make it up and it will be as per the following:

"OBR
7.06 (b)
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

I think ignoring the missed base would constitute nullifying the act of obstruction."

Or how about my interpretation because, I think ignoring the missed base not only nullifies OBS but also nulifies 7.02 also. And because the Official Rules don't clearly state that, who is to say I am any more right than Big Tex.

So all Prince needs to do is lie on first base. Then no one can ever touch it and everyone can be called out on appeal for not touching the base? You think so? Really?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So all Prince needs to do is lie on first base. Then no one can ever touch it and everyone can be called out on appeal for not touching the base? You think so? Really?

I don't know Rich, ask Publius, he doesn't think any source is reliable (official) enough to change a ruling, so if you agree and declare Prince the official OBS of first base. Then go for it, your just as reliable as J/R, BRD. Correct?

[MD Longhorn]

I don't consider JR the be-all-end-all that it used to be... however, they are obviously dead right on this ruling.

[dash_riprock]

The penalty I would impose in order to nullify the act of obstruction would be the denial of an otherwise valid missed-base appeal.

[smithma]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't consider JR the be-all-end-all that it used to be... however, they are obviously dead right on this ruling.

BRD also has a similar ruling from Wendelstedt.