Obstruction or nothing

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich

A runner rounding first is frequently slowing down. He brushes a fielder while slowing, that's nothing, regardless of the rules set.

That's not how I read DG's post. He mentioned nothing about a runner slowing down. I envisioned a routine (re: aggressive) rounding of the bag that is hindered by the fielder's presence.

Hell, in softball, I often see the first baseman on a clean single set up such that the BR has to widen her rounding of the bag. In other words, the BR cannot touch the inside (front-left) corner of the bag; rather, she has to step on the top or even the outside (back-right) corner of the bag. That's Obstruction, even if it's a clean single and the BR probably had no intention of advancing further. I can't imagine that the same is not true for baseball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

A runner rounding first is frequently slowing down. He brushes a fielder while slowing, that's nothing, regardless of the rules set.

True. He said Bumps into... which I took as mild hinderance. The border between the two - definitely HTBT. I'm not saying calling every little nothing as obstruction... I don't think we're as far off as it sounds.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The fact that umpires are willfully NOT calling plays correctly because the penalty is inequitable says everything there is to say about the rule itself.

There is a belief out there that some of the NFHS rule differences from OBR are based on the presumption that high school umpires are not as good as professional umpires. They think that always awarding a runner a minimum of one base for obstruction, no matter what, makes it easier for the umpire. They think that killing the ball the instant a balk occurs makes it easier for the umpire. That's probably all true, too. Things could get very complicated for an inexperienced umpire if this were not the case. For those umpires who are experienced and capable of making these fine discernments, some of the NFHS rules seem "unfair".

[Robert E. Harrison]

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

[MD Longhorn]

Yeah, if that's what DG meant, I don't either. I guess I envisioned more from "bumps into" than this.

[DG]

Best not to read between the lines.

What I said was, "I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed". Penalty is different upon rule set, but not whether it happened or not.

I also said "bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b".

[dash_riprock]

Obstruction occurs when a fielder hinders or impedes the progress of a runner. Contact can happen without obstruction, and obstruction can happen without contact.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Rich

A runner rounding first is frequently slowing down. He brushes a fielder while slowing, that's nothing, regardless of the rules set.

That's post-decision on advancing or not. But sometimes the runner will see something that causes him to re-attempt 2B (throw gets away, E in the outfield, whatever) so it may be wise to pause slightly before deciding on a call or non-call.

If he's still in stride it should be obs.