Appeal of OBS Runner's Missed Base

[cookie]

Jaksa/Roder has: "If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his missed base cannot be upheld." However, they do not give any examples of such plays, nor do they cite any explicit OBR reference in their book.

I've been searching the rule & case books for information but coming empty handed for a rule cite and a case play on this matter. Does anyone know of a rule cite and case play?

Also, is the same in all codes: Pro, NCAA, and Fed?

[JR12]

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
I'm imagininig R2 on second. B3 singles.
R2 is obstructed by F5 as he attempts to touch third and head home. The OBS causes R2 to miss third.
R2 thrown out at Home, but awarded home on type 2 OBS. Defense appeals R2 missing third. Appeal is denied.

[SAump]

Similar question raised earlier this year.

Missed base caused by OBS

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by cookie

Jaksa/Roder has: "If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his missed base cannot be upheld." However, they do not give any examples of such plays, nor do they cite any explicit OBR reference in their book.

I've been searching the rule & case books for information but coming empty handed for a rule cite and a case play on this matter. Does anyone know of a rule cite and case play?

Also, is the same in all codes: Pro, NCAA, and Fed?

BRD to the rescue: NFHS has no rule or interpretation. The NCAA official interp is from the previous rulesa editor, Rich Fetchiet: "If, in the umpire’s judgment, obstruction occurred near enough to a base so that it prevented the runner from conveniently touching the bag, a subsequent appeal at the missed base would be denied."

The OBR (Hunter Wendelstedt): "If a runner misses a base or never reaches a base as a result of the obstruction by a fielder, the umpire may consider the base as touched or reached if he believes it would have taken place had the obstruction not occurred."

Apparently, Rick is not allowing for umpire judgment. Rather, he makes a flat statement that official interpretations contradict.
Here's a play from the BRD:

R2. B1 singles. As R2 nears third, F5 obstructs him, he misses third, and is safe on a close play at the plate. The defense then appeals he missed third. Ruling: Umpire judgment: But if the obstruction occurred several steps from the base, the base umpire would likely uphold the appeal.

This is all from Section 347 in the 2012 BRD, available at Amazon.com.

[kylejt]

Wouldn't just plain ol' common sense dictate this one? Who on Earth would bang an out on an appeal, if the OBS caused the miss? If they did, then first baseman everywhere would sit on their bag on every ball hit in the gap.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Wouldn't just plain ol' common sense dictate this one? Who on Earth would bang an out on an appeal, if the OBS caused the miss? If they did, then first baseman everywhere would sit on their bag on every ball hit in the gap.

Kyle, you must be aware that relying on common sense is not good umpiring. For one thing, common sense is not always that common. For another, the rules are not always that sensible.

[jdmara]

First of all, I'm not disagreeing with the logic everyone is using. However, directly from the NCAA preseason test (Yes, I know the OP says OBR):

R3, two outs. The batter hits a ground ball to F4. His throw is off-line pulling F3 into the running lane in front of first base. F3 and B/R collide as F3 is reaching for the throw. The collision is within the three-foot running lane. BR misses first because of the collision and advances to second on the bad throw. R3 scores on the play. The defense properly appeals that BR missed first.

a. BR is allowed to remain at second on the bad throw. The collision caused BR to miss first. Therefore, the missing of the base is ignored, which allows the run to score.
b. The umpire should have called obstruction when the collision occurred and placed the BR at first. R3 would either score or remain at third, depending on the umpire's judgment as to what would have happened if the obstruction had not occurred .
c. The appeal is allowed. BR is out and no run scores.
d. The umpire should have called interference when the collision occurred and declared BR out for the third out of the inning.

Correct Answer: c. (5-6c (1))

I got the question wrong because I don't think you can fault the runner but the NCAA I guess thinks you can.

-Josh

[kylejt]

That's a horse of a different color, as that's just a trainwreck, and not obstruction.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kylejt

That's a horse of a different color, as that's just a trainwreck, and not obstruction.

It's OBS in FED. 8.3.2K

[cookie]

Later that Tuesday afternoon I found what I was looking for in the 2011 BRD - Section 346 - page 241:

Fed - no provision (treat as in NCAA); NCAA - point not covered (however, there is official interpretation from Fetcheit denying the appeal); OBR - point not covered (however, there is again an official interpretation from Fitzpatrick denying the appeal). AND there is a play (#181-346) very similar to what JR12 posted here.

Thanks Carl C. for posting your response. I think I will start first with your BRD next time I get involved in a search like this. (Also, Carl, your Section 347 in the 2011 BRD really refers to what the last 3 posters -jdmara, kylejt, and mbyron - presented: OBS and collision at 1st base.)

AND thanks SAump for referring me to the past thread on this topic (March 2012). I read it through and it was very informative.

So I now see that there is no explicit rule on this matter, but there are authoritative opinions (JR) and official interpretations (NCAA & PBUC) covering this point that most likely derive from "...impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction...).