Missed base caused by OBS
 

OBR. R1. The batter grounds one down the right field line. R1 is obstructed (type b) by F4, causing R1 to miss 2nd base. R1 is then thrown out on a close play at 3rd base. The umpire calls time and awards R1 3rd base.

Can R1 be called out on appeal for missing 2nd base?

Thanks.

Yes. R1 is still responsible for running the bases correctly. If during the dead ball he first returns to 2B, touches it, and then goes to 3B, he will negate an appeal.

Obviously, in OBR you're not going to rule on an appeal until the ball is made live. If R1 has not touched 2B and the defense legitimately appeals the missed base, R1 is out.

If the runner misses the base directly as a result of the obstruction (and was close enough to the base in the umpire's judgment that he couldn't conveniently touch the base), we will not uphold an appeal on that runner. There are citations from Fetchiet and from Wendelstedt in the most recent BRD to this effect.

Not aware of any rule that gives a runner an exception for not touching a base. OBR 7.02. Even on an award, OBR Rule "7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases. For example: batter hits a ground ball which an infielder throws into the stands but the batter-runner missed first base. He may be called out on appeal for missing first base after the ball is put in play even though he was “awarded” second base."

According to J/R "If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his miss of such base cannot be upheld."

BRD qualifies it if the umpire judges the runner would have touched the base without the obstruction.

Michael,

I disagree.

If the umpire judges that the obstruction was the proximate cause of the runner missing the base, the runner is under no obligation to retouch the base after the ball becomes dead, and an appeal of the miss cannot be upheld.

Ref.: J/R (Ruling on Obstruction), BRD ("Obstruction: Causes baserunning error)

JM

Think of it this way, fellas. If the runner were required to touch an obstructed base, why wouldn't F3 just sit on the base on every ball to the gap?

If the OBS causes the miss, he does not have to go back and touch it.

(I won't speak to FED rules, because I have a day job)

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.

This.

Also think about a following runner
 

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.

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. :mad:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

BRD also has a similar ruling from Wendelstedt.:)