Now, for some actual baseball

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, it most definitely does. if the runner TRIED TO run into the fielder (who was not between that runner and any base), then the fielder did not prevent him from running where he wanted to run. You can't award obstruction to a runner who intentionally runs toward a fielder instead of a base.

Well, I guess we'll disagree here, then. Reminds of of the basketball play where the defender tries to embellish contact to draw a charge -- that alone doesn't mean that it's no longer a player control foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Well, I guess we'll disagree here, then. Reminds of of the basketball play where the defender tries to embellish contact to draw a charge -- that alone doesn't mean that it's no longer a player control foul.

Think about it. If what you are saying is true was true, runners would not need to run to bases at all... just find the nearest fielder and run into them.

If a fielder in your way causes you to deviate (whether by contact or by changing directions to avoid, or slow down, etc) - it's obstruction. if the fielder NOT in your way requires you to deviate in order to draw contact, it's nothing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Think about it. If what you are saying is true was true, runners would not need to run to bases at all... just find the nearest fielder and run into them.

If a fielder in your way causes you to deviate (whether by contact or by changing directions to avoid, or slow down, etc) - it's obstruction. if the fielder NOT in your way requires you to deviate in order to draw contact, it's nothing.

He changed directions as part of the rundown. Did he take a step in the direction of the fielder? Yes. Did he do it intentionally? Probably. He's entitled to take that step, though -- the fielder was too close.

This is why I said we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't see either of us moving from our position.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

He changed directions as part of the rundown. Did he take a step in the direction of the fielder? Yes. Did he do it intentionally? Probably. He's entitled to take that step, though -- the fielder was too close.

This is why I said we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't see either of us moving from our position.

I'm trying very hard to find the place in the book that says the runner is entitled to run into the fielder intentionally as long as it's just 1 step, and I can't find it. Little help here?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm trying very hard to find the place in the book that says the runner is entitled to run into the fielder intentionally as long as it's just 1 step, and I can't find it. Little help here?

The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.

I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

As you know, it's umpire judgment. I've explained how I judge in post #16, above. Perhaps your criteria are different?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

The intent of the runner is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this OBS call is whether the runner's progress toward the base was impeded by F2.