Missed base caused by OBS

[CT1]

Originally Posted by BigTex

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

This.

[Robert E. Harrison]

If obstruction causes a missed base such as home plate with a following runner sliding in shortly after, the obstructed baserunner would not be allowed to touch the plate. So you award the touch due to the obstruction.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

So you award the touch due to the obstruction.

This is exactly the problem I have with this interp. There is no such thing as an awarded touch.

Also, it violates the principle that a baserunner is always required legally to touch each base in order.

Don't like it. I might live with it, but I don't have to like it.

[kylejt]

There's the confusion. It's not an award, if the runner has already passed it.

Now, if the OBS happened at first, like if the BR was decked by F3, and didn't advance, and if the umpire awarded him third, THEN he would be obligated to touch second, on his way by first.

Now, here's the tricky part, and point of contention. Say that runner had his leg broken near first, caused by that OBS. A sub comes in and goes to third. Does HE have to touch first and second, on his way?

Honestly, I don't know.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Now, here's the tricky part, and point of contention. Say that runner had his leg broken near first, caused by that OBS. A sub comes in and goes to third. Does HE have to touch first and second, on his way?

The sub has to complete the award, which includes touching bases between the last legally acquired base and the awarded base. He doesn't get to walk out of the dugout and directly to third base.

[kylejt]

Ah, but does he have to touch first, because of the OBS? The original runner wouldn't need to, if he were standing on third.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is exactly the problem I have with this interp. There is no such thing as an awarded touch.

Also, it violates the principle that a baserunner is always required legally to touch each base in order.

Don't like it. I might live with it, but I don't have to like it.

I agree, both JR and BRD make weak arguments in support of this ruling. But they are official. I was always under the belief that under all circumstances the runner had to touch and the umpires award for OBS took into consideration the additionaal effort to make the touch after being obstructed. BRD talks about OBS at the base vs several steps from the base.

This interp really stretches the imangination of the rule. But it certainly not the only one.

[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.

[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?