Now, for some actual baseball

[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.

[RPatrino]

In all these cases it is obstruction, pure and simple. My issue with these base runners is the need to make aggressive contact. Throwing in an elbow or lowering your shoulder, to me, might border on malicious contact (NCAA and below).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

To my mind, we're almost saying the same thing.

To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.

To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.

How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.

Agreed.

To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.

Maybe. It depends on where the fielder is relative to the runner's basepath. It does not depend on what the runner is trying to do.

How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?

See mbyron's post #16. That sums it up for me.