Obstruction or nothing

[MD Longhorn]

I did change the play slightly to illustrate the point. However, the rulings are the exact same. The lack of a throw from F2 doesn't mean the OBS 2 seconds prior didn't happen. People were obsessing over the fact that there was no action after the OBS, so there wasn't any OBS. The subsequent action is irrelevant. It was OBS when it happened, regardless of what happens afterward.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I did change the play slightly to illustrate the point. However, the rulings are the exact same. The lack of a throw from F2 doesn't mean the OBS 2 seconds prior didn't happen. People were obsessing over the fact that there was no action after the OBS, so there wasn't any OBS. The subsequent action is irrelevant. It was OBS when it happened, regardless of what happens afterward.

And like Bob said, I'd look for a reason not to call it in a FED game of there was no throw/play.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The lack of a throw from F2 doesn't mean the OBS 2 seconds prior didn't happen.

Would you enforce OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3 while making his turn if the ball gets fielded immediately and thrown in to second base?

Neither would I.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

Would you enforce OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3 while making his turn if the ball gets fielded immediately and thrown in to second base?

Neither would I.

Honest answer... Any ruleset but NFHS, yes I would. I'd do it quietly, but I'd definitely signal it. Because it IS obstruction. And on the miniscule chance it matters because of something that happened right after that.

NFHS? Their rule is stupid. 99% of the umpires I know agree. Bob's and Rich's comments that they would look for reasons not to see the OP tells me they agree too. No one wants to award 3rd on the OP (unless they just HAVE to). No one wants to award 2nd on the play you just posted. 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. So to answer your question truthfully, in a high school game, I'm going to somehow fail to see the contact in the play you posted.

Am I wrong for not calling it? Probably. Would my assignor or evaluators ding me for it? I don't think they saw contact either.

(There are numerous examples of this in football as well.)

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CT1

Would you enforce OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3 while making his turn if the ball gets fielded immediately and thrown in to second base?

Neither would I.

The more pertinent question is, do you HAVE OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3.... Whether or not you enforce it is another matter entirely.

Yes, the FED rule is kinda dumb. But equally dumb is F3 for being in a position to obstruct B1 on a clean single. The same can be said with F6 in the OP. Until FED decides its rule is dumb and goes the way of OBR, then you'd better be VERY convincing that you didn't see the tangle and are willing to cut a dumb fielder some slack.

[JJ]

In FED I WOULD call obstruction and enforce it. I don't judge intent on obstruction - I'm not that good. Plus, if it is enforced the offending fielder USUALLY learns that he probably shouldn't have been where he was doing what he was doing.
Ignore it and it may happen again. Enforce it and it may not.

JJ

[DG]

I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed.

In the original post I have obstruction because the runner was knocked to the ground and a play was made on him. I don't imagine the catcher would be throwing the ball down there except to make a play.

If the BR was rounding 1b and bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b, as he would not be on a clean single being returning to infield, I don't see obstruction there.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed.

In the original post I have obstruction because the runner was knocked to the ground and a play was made on him. I don't imagine the catcher would be throwing the ball down there except to make a play.

If the BR was rounding 1b and bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b, as he would not be on a clean single being returning to infield, I don't see obstruction there.

You need to reread the definition of Obstruction.

There's only one reason why a BR would round first base, and that's to possibly advance to second. Otherwise, they would just overrun the bag or stop on top of it. If the BR is hindered while rounding, that's Obstruction, plain and simple.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You need to reread the definition of Obstruction.

There's only one reason why a BR would round first base, and that's to possibly advance to second. Otherwise, they would just overrun the bag or stop on top of it. If the BR is hindered while rounding, that's Obstruction, plain and simple.

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You need to reread the definition of Obstruction.

There's only one reason why a BR would round first base, and that's to possibly advance to second. Otherwise, they would just overrun the bag or stop on top of it. If the BR is hindered while rounding, that's Obstruction, plain and simple.

FED has a specific case play or interp that the play presented by DG is NOT obstruction.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DG

I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed.

In the original post I have obstruction because the runner was knocked to the ground and a play was made on him. I don't imagine the catcher would be throwing the ball down there except to make a play.

If the BR was rounding 1b and bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b, as he would not be on a clean single being returning to infield, I don't see obstruction there.

That's unfortunate, because it's the same, and you do not know at that moment what else might unfold.