An interesting force out/obstruction

[Mountaincoach]

Hello. I'm new here and want to say hello from Kentucky. I coach a minor league (7-9 year olds) baseball team. I saw a play last night that was very interesting (at least to me after thinking about it). I think the umpire got it right, but I can see how it could be confusing. R1 and R2 on base. Batter hit a ground ball to shallow 3rd base area. F5 fields the ball and steps on 3rd for the force out, BUT at the very same moment, F6 ran into R2 and impeded her progress to third. She was probably about 6 feet from the bag, and it was obvious that the fielder was going to get the out (i.e. It wasn't going to be close). The umpire called the runner out and stated that the obstruction did not apply because she had no chance of beating the fielder to the base. Any thoughts or comments?

[mbyron]

1. Teach your fielders to stay out the baseline.

2. I agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning. No provision of the rules "suspends" the obstruction rule if the runner has "no chance" of beating the fielder. If the obstruction happened at the "very same moment" as the out, then I'd rule that the runner was out before being obstructed.

[Mountaincoach]

Thanks for the reply. Actually, my players were on offense. The other coach reminded his kids to avoid the base path. I just thought it was an interesting case. Our league is a pretty fun bunch.

[kylejt]

See, I teach differently. If the defensive player is going after a batted ball, I teach them they have priority over the runner, and need to go after it. Too many shortstops hold up from charging a ball, and lose out on a play, because they think they can't get in the path of R2.

In the orginal post, it's simply a matter of what happened first. This would be type a OBS, if that happened first, and the play would be dead at the time the runner was impeded. What happened after that wouldn't matter. So it's critical to determine the order of what happened.

[Mountaincoach]

Yes I agree the obstruction would have negated the rest of the play if it happened before the base tag. But it pretty much happened simultaneously, so the umpire made a judgement call and called the force out at third.

Coincidentally, I just had a guy walk into my workplace who's been a little league umpire for about 10 years. I mentioned the play to him and he brought up another point that I'm not so sure about. In the play, both F5 and F6 charged the ball. After F5 beat F6 to the ball, F6 ran back toward his playing area and collided with my runner. The guy I just talked to said that was NOT obstruction BECAUSE F6 could have theoretically been trying to make a play at second considering R1 was coming to second (even though F5 was making an unassisted play at third at the time with the ball in his glove). I'm not so sure about that.....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mountaincoach

Yes I agree the obstruction would have negated the rest of the play if it happened before the base tag. But it pretty much happened simultaneously, so the umpire made a judgement call and called the force out at third.

Coincidentally, I just had a guy walk into my workplace who's been a little league umpire for about 10 years. I mentioned the play to him and he brought up another point that I'm not so sure about. In the play, both F5 and F6 charged the ball. After F5 beat F6 to the ball, F6 ran back toward his playing area and collided with my runner. The guy I just talked to said that was NOT obstruction BECAUSE F6 could have theoretically been trying to make a play at second considering R1 was coming to second (even though F5 was making an unassisted play at third at the time with the ball in his glove). I'm not so sure about that.....

...with good reason. He's wrong.

On a batted ball, there is no more than one protected fielder--the fielder who, in the umpire's judgment, has the best chance of fielding the ball at the time. Any impeding of a runner by any other fielder is obstruction. Any impeding of the protected fielder is interference.

Once the ball is fielded, it is no longer a batted ball. Any impeding of a runner by any fielder without the ball is obstruction, unless (assuming OBR) the fielder is in the act of catching a thrown ball when a play is imminent. For this type of impediment to be legal, the act that impedes the runner must be a part of the necessary action of the fielder to make the play. Under FED, there is no imminent play allowance--the fielder must allow some access to the base unless he has possession of the ball.

[Mountaincoach]

Originally Posted by Matt

...with good reason. He's wrong.

On a batted ball, there is no more than one protected fielder--the fielder who, in the umpire's judgment, has the best chance of fielding the ball at the time. Any impeding of a runner by any other fielder is obstruction. Any impeding of the protected fielder is interference.

Once the ball is fielded, it is no longer a batted ball. Any impeding of a runner by any fielder without the ball is obstruction, unless (assuming OBR) the fielder is in the act of catching a thrown ball when a play is imminent. For this type of impediment to be legal, the act that impedes the runner must be a part of the necessary action of the fielder to make the play. Under FED, there is no imminent play allowance--the fielder must allow some access to the base unless he has possession of the ball.

Thanks! He's a long-time friend of mine, and I can't wait to tell him.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Mountaincoach

Thanks! He's a long-time friend of mine, and I can't wait to tell him.

Yeah, baby. Gettin' lucky in Kentucky!

[RPatrino]

You don't ignore the obstruction, you either enforce or not enforce the penalty.

[Mountaincoach]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

You don't ignore the obstruction, you either enforce or not enforce the penalty.

But how do you enforce it in that situation? Does it overrule the force out at third regardless of whether or not the third baseman tagged the bag before, at the same time, or after the obstruction occurred?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mountaincoach

But how do you enforce it in that situation? Does it overrule the force out at third regardless of whether or not the third baseman tagged the bag before, at the same time, or after the obstruction occurred?

If the runner was obstructed before that runner was out, you enforce the obstruction, even if it's almost definite that the runner would have been out. In your sitch, if the OBS was first, runner gets 3rd.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

You don't ignore the obstruction, you either enforce or not enforce the penalty.

I wouldn't put it this way. This issue is whether the hindrance occurred before the runner was out. If before, then it's OBS. If not, then not.

If you rule obstruction, you must enforce the penalty.

[Rich Ives]

R2 was header to 3B. The play was made at 3B. The play was thus made on R2. R2 was obsrtructed. Type A. Automatic minimum one base award. R2 gets 3B. There's no woulda-shoulda about Type A.

In FED it's ALWAYS a minimum one base.

Convince me I'm wrong.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

R2 was header to 3B. The play was made at 3B. The play was thus made on R2. R2 was obsrtructed. Type A. Automatic minimum one base award. R2 gets 3B. There's no woulda-shoulda about Type A.

In FED it's ALWAYS a minimum one base.

Convince me I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, my point is that it's impossible to hinder a retired runner.

[rbmartin]

If F5 steps on 3rd before contact between R2 and F6...out and no obstruction.
If contact between R2 and F6 happens before F5 steps on 3rd (regardless of how far away the runner might be) ...award the runner 3rd base (for OBR - dead ball....for FED delayed dead ball).