Obstruction or nothing

[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.